Talk:Francium

message: I think if there are GHS and NFPA datas for francium, the hazard data is expected to be like this:
That will dominate the most hazardous element in every aspect! They will be explosive, flammable, corrosive, extremely toxic, carcinogenic, and extremely hazardous to environment.
2405:9800:BA31:F6:8071:4ACA:97FD:8D99 (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you add a source for this? And, no ? -DePiep (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I added P-phrases, which come from many articles about chemical elements. Note that my predicted P-phrases may not be 100% accurate. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:9592:104:4E5D:50FD (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanx. Still, we need sources for such statements in the article, so please add links (just copy the url). Note thate the sources must be RS: reliable sources, representing scientific research or (in GHS case) authotities. -DePiep (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, but don't worry that the predicted hazards may not be accurate since there are no source here. I can't find the hazard data for francium from any sources, so this is only just the sample of the hazard data for francium. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:9592:104:4E5D:50FD (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This would all presumably be overwhelmed by the gigantic radiation hazards. :D Double sharp (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predicted GHS and NFPA 704 

message: I have noticed that the Francium article does not have a lead image of the pure sample like many other element pages. This is obviously because bulk francium has never been prepared.
However, later in the article, it shows an image of light of 200,000 francium atoms and an image of heat from 300,000 francium atoms.
Though this is obviously not the same as a bulk sample, I think we should use one of these images as a lead image, as it is the closest thing we have to a macroscopic sample of francium. We could also provide a caption with it that explains how it is a light or heat image.
2601:600:9080:A4B0:B17F:E0A9:50F5:577E (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Image 

message: Two quite differentvalues are given for the estimate of the amount of Francium in the earth's crust. One, unreferenced, is 200-500 g, while the second, referenced, is an ounce (28 g, I presume). It would be good to either pull these two estiamted into the same place in the text, or decide which is more reasonable. The use of the word 'ounce' makes that estiamte seem to be from American popular literature, not a scientific assessment. 202.172.113.133 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The amount that exists is necessarily an estimate, because the short half-life means that any amount of francium only exists as a radioactive decay product of actinium, itself a radioactive decay product. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to be consistent. The source says , so this value should be reflected in the lead. The 200-500 g value is inconsistent with the referenced value in the article. Polyamorph (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

text: I've changed the abundance in the lead section for consistency with the currently referenced value. Polyamorph (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amount of Francium in earth's crust