Talk:Curie (unit)

message: Changing the name of Curie to "Curie (unit)" or "Curie (Measurement)" would fix this little problem in Wikipedia's mislabel of this.
Kenji000 (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradiction: Pierre Curie 

message: Is the conversion between Ci and Bq defined as exactly 37 billion?  If not, then the inverse conversion should certainly not be exact, as indicated by the repeating decimal.  Even if it is exact, I feel like it draws attention undue attention and should be removed.  Unless someone can argue otherwise, I'll change it.
BailesB 03:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeating Decimal 

message: I currently work in nuclear power and would say that the curie is far from being replaced by any other unit. The curie is still the standard for measure of quantity of radioactive material throughout the US commercial and Naval nuclear power programs.
:Well. Also here in the middle of Europe the curie is the standard by which we measure specific radioactivity of substances. -> if both in USA and EU, in both nuclear power and biology Curie would be far from replacement in daily life, so where else it is not? Reo ON  |  +++ 16:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the UK, standard measurement is in bequerels, the curie is an obsolete measurement that doesn't even have a defined value. 81.144.241.196 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: UK usage does not apply to the rest of the world.  In the US, we happily continue to use the curie.Izuko (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In France, as in the rest of the world that has accepted the SI and in which it is legally binding, SI units are to be used in all legal documents. In the US, you also happily continue to use Fahrenheits, inches of mercury, and other pounds-force, rems, and rads, so I would not base my assumptions of the world-wide use of any unit upon its use in the US alone. Hébus (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, right here, you base YOUR assumption on world-wide use of the unit on French use alone.  I, on the other hand, simply used the US as an example of a major nation that still uses Curies, in order to disprove the assumption that it is unused anywhere.  So, the question for you is, do you want to deal with reality, or just engage in piss-poor nation bashing?  Your call.Izuko (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  curie out of date 

message: What exactly is a low, normal and high level of radiation measured in curie? What is a dangerous level for humans? I saw in the series Heroes they measured 1800 Curie and said "let's get out of here". Is that realistic, or would they be dead already?
Blonkm 02:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually reasonably accurate.  An 1800 Ci Co-60 source at 1 metre would lead to an exposure of a few tens of rem per minute, which means acute symptoms (nausea, vomiting) within a couple of minutes, and fatal exposures at around 10 minutes (athough the symptoms would have a latency period and may take hours to days to appear).Mjamja (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is considered low, normal, high? 

message: Shouldn't this be a nuclear physics article, instead of a chemistry article?
:No, because curies are used to measure radioactivity. Radioactivity is a fundamental principle of chemistry, and is only applied in nuclear physics. Nuclear physics uses the curie, but it's based on the science of chemistry.Wise Old Frog (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been 3 years, but your statement cannot stand as is. Nuclear decay is a property of the nucleus of an atom, whereas chemical properties and processes are concerned with the electron shell of an atom. Hence radioactivity is a phenomenon that may be observed by chemists, but only understood in terms of nuclear physics.--139.191.190.4 (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chem or Phys? 

message: This article states that the curie was named after Marie Curie, however, Pierre Curie states that the curie was named after Pierre. 71.238.70.220 (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was named in honour of Marie, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica Alastairward (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it was deliberately left ambiguous: How the curie came to be. Hqb (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curie - Marie or Pierre? 

message: I say that  megacurie, kilocurie, etc. should have their own pages since kilogram and other measurments have their own pages.  Since this is true, why shouldn't the curie measurments have their own pages?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.252.151 (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curie (Measurment) 

message: Non-experts may be curious about the relationship between the two units (if any), just what is measured and which unit is used and why.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.101.166 (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curies - Roentgens 

message: What’s the deal with the unit’s symbol? The article uses “Ci”, which is what one would expect for a unit derived from a proper name. But the table in Curie#Radiation Related Quantities uses “c” (a lower-case C), and I’ve seen it like that elsewhere on Wikipedia. Shouldn’t there be a note about alternate usage somewhere in there? bogdanb (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbol 

message: This article could benefit from a history section, describing when and how this unit came to be and its usage history.  This would also be a good place to expand on when and why the NIST started discouraging its use. 50.174.76.122 (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Consensus for the disambiguation page.   buidhe 23:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Curie →  – I doubt the unit of measurement is the primary topic for Curie. I am proposing three options. I support Option 1, but open to other interpretations.
===Option 1===
Curie is a disambiguation page with no primary topic.
===Option 2===
Curie redirects to Marie Curie with a hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page.
===Option 3===
Leave everything as is. Interstellarity (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 June 2020 

message: Leave everything as is. Interstellarity (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 3

message: Data from the article
Isotope	Half-life       	Mass of 1 curie    	Specific activity (Ci/g)	Half-life  seconds	Mass of 1 curie,  grams	sec/gram
209Bi  	1.9×1019 years  	11.1 billion tonnes	9.01×10−17              	6.00E+26          	1.11E+13               	5.40E+13
3H     	12.32 years     	104 μg             	9,621                   	3.89E+08          	1.04E-04               	3.74E+12
14C    	5730 years      	0.22 g             	4.5                     	1.81E+11          	2.20E-01               	8.22E+11
40K    	1.25×109 years  	140 kg             	7.1×10−6                	3.94E+16          	1.40E+05               	2.82E+11
60Co   	1925 days       	883 μg             	1,132                   	1.66E+08          	8.83E-04               	1.88E+11
90Sr   	28.8 years      	7.2 mg             	139                     	9.09E+08          	7.20E-03               	1.26E+11
99Tc   	211×103 years   	58 g               	0.017                   	6.66E+12          	5.80E+01               	1.15E+11
123I   	13 hours        	518 ng             	1,930,000               	4.68E+04          	5.18E-07               	9.03E+10
129I   	15.7×106 years  	5.66 kg            	0.00018                 	4.95E+14          	5.66E+03               	8.75E+10
131I   	8.02 days       	8 μg               	125,000                 	6.93E+05          	8.00E-06               	8.66E+10
137Cs  	30.17 years     	12 mg              	83                      	9.52E+08          	1.20E-02               	7.93E+10
210Po  	138 days        	223 μg             	4,484                   	1.19E+07          	2.23E-04               	5.35E+10
212Po  	299 nanoseconds 	5.61 ag            	1.78×1017               	2.99E-07          	5.61E-18               	5.33E+10
212Pb  	10.64 hours     	719 ng             	1,390,000               	3.83E+04          	7.19E-07               	5.33E+10
223Fr  	22 minutes      	26 ng              	38,000,000              	1.32E+03          	2.60E-08               	5.08E+10
226Ra  	1601 years      	1.01 g             	0.99                    	5.05E+10          	1.01E+00               	5.00E+10
228Ra  	5.75 years      	3.67 mg            	273                     	1.81E+08          	3.67E-03               	4.94E+10
232Th  	1.405×1010 years	9.1 tonnes         	1.1×10−7                	4.43E+17          	9.10E+06               	4.87E+10
235U   	7.038×108 years 	463 kg             	2.2×10−6                	2.22E+16          	4.63E+05               	4.80E+10
239Pu  	24.11×103 years 	16 g               	0.063                   	7.61E+11          	1.60E+01               	4.76E+10
238U   	4.471×109 years 	2.977 tonnes       	3.4×10−7                	1.41E+17          	2.98E+06               	4.74E+10
241Am  	432.6 years     	0.29 g             	3.43                    	1.37E+10          	2.90E-01               	4.71E+10
240Pu  	6563 years      	4.4 g              	0.23                    	2.07E+11          	4.40E+00               	4.71E+10
238Pu  	88 years        	59 mg              	17                      	2.78E+09          	5.90E-02               	4.71E+10
241Pu  	14 years        	9.4 mg             	106                     	4.42E+08          	9.40E-03               	4.70E+10
MBG02 (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half-life  /  Mass of 1 curie