Talk:Plutonium/Archive 1

message: This talk page was vandalised by a couple of anons, who deleted sections out of some of my posts to render them nonsensical. I guess they didn't like what I said, and I think I can understand that. Telling lies about plutonium is something of an industry all of its own, and accurate Wikipedia articles threaten it.
Not that this article is perfect by any means! Lots of weasel-words in there still. That's why I think this talk page is important (and so do others, obviously).
I think I've got it back to rights. It wasn't a simple revert as there had been good-faith contributions in the meantime which I didn't want to lose, or even complicate their histories as at least one is unsigned. And I guess it will happen again, so I suggest anyone updating this page check for recent vandalism, and make your update to the last unvandalised version, which will painlessly revert the corruption. Andrewa 10:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism - a suggestion

message: I thought appropriate to point out that small contents of 240Pu make the material proliferation-resistant, and why.
 --Philipum 12:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why reactor-grade plutonium is unsuitable for making a bomb 

message: What is the reason for including the following line about a recent "breaking" news article about a future prospect for the manufacture of Pu-238 in an encyclopedia of fact?
:On June 27, 2005 a story broke in the New York Times that a reactor at INL would be used to manufacture 238Pu.
If there is actually substantial development in this area worthy of mention in an encyclopedia, then no mention of "breaking" news with the date of the article and the periodical of publication (the New York Times, with its poor science reporting anyhow) is warranted. - Centrx 21:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for including mention of breaking news article? 

message: The table of various oxidation states obscures some of the text and another table - true for both IE and Firefox - could someone please fix it?  Thx. 66.215.44.176 04:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved it below the infobox. I'm yet to hear of any technical guidelines that solve these flowaround problems. Femto 13:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table obscures text 

message: This would need to be properly sourced — my source is a Los Alamos scientist speaking informally many years ago, but it makes sense.  His point was that our respiratory systems are evolved to handle all sorts of airborne hazards.  Anything that actually stays in the lungs has to be of a particular combination of size and density.  Too large and it gets caught in the upper respiratory system and coughed back up.  Too small, and you breathe it right back out.  This applies to anything, but in this case it would apply to the extremely finely powdered Pu mentioned in the text.  It's not impossible for powdered Pu (or other substance) to stay in the lungs for significant amounts of time, but it's much less likely than one would guess.  I've seen the same argument in discussions of why weaponizing anthrax is harder than it might seem based on the minimum amount needed to infect someone. -Dmh 16:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that the external links on Pu toxicity take this into account in much more detail than I just gave.  It would be good to move more of this into the main article.  I don't have the bandwidth at the moment. -Dmh 15:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inhaling toxic particles 

message: The text that talks about the ionic oxidation states and the pictures of the colorful test tubes are far apart. Is there something we can do to get them together? -- Pinktulip 05:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No dice on moving the picture. It squashed itself and the adjacent text into the infobox, it's been shuffled around until we gave up trying. Perhaps though someone could relocate the whole oxidation state topic into the compounds section? Femto 20:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep text and pictures  together... 

message: I added a short sentence in the Precautions section about Fat Man and Little Boy fairly accurately portraying the Louis Slotin/Harry Daghlian criticality deaths. The movie is generally derided as not very good, but in this one scene they fairly accurately portrayed a combination of the two incidents. I reviewed all documentation and photographs I could find for the Slotin/Daghlian incidents, and compared to movie scene. It seems relatively accurate and greatly helps to visualize the situation and aftermath. I've discussed the accidents with physicists and they universally comment how amazing Slotin, Daghlian, etc. worked under such primitive conditions and attempted such dangerous things. By current radiation health standards, what they did is just fantastically dangerous, but that's typical for the early immature phase of many technologies. The movie helps visualize that from the standpoint of how the test cell was configured and how the accident could happen. If anybody doesn't think the sentence belongs, feel free to remove it. Joema 19:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added sentence in precautions section about Fat Man and Little Boy 

message: It would be nice to standardize all the periodic table images.  If you look at some of the other elements (uranium for example), you'll notice the picture of the periodic table displayed on that elements page has been customized for the specific element.
Aquadisco 01:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The images are part of WikiProject Elements and admittedly haven't seen much work for a long time (some were never completed). If anybody wants to work on them, this would also be the place to bring in new suggestions. Femto 11:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardizing The Periodic Table Images 

message: We should probably discuss plutonium metallurgy. Every time I've read about it, it seemed fairly difficult, especially owing to the various possible crystalline phases for this metal, with significantly varying densities. Given the fact that this is fissile material, this is bound to cause delicate issues. David.Monniaux 09:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metallurgy 

message: Can someone explain to me (and preferably in the article, too) what the joke is in choosing Pu for Plutonium?  Is it just the transposition of letters?  Did someone call it Pultonium?
RandomP 21:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I must be dense ... 

message: "Pu redirects here. Pu is also a name for Car Nicobar island in its local language."
Okay, what percentage of people will actually be searching for the other Pu?  I can see a redirect on the Malaysian Wiki, but a redirect on the english one is silly.  Unless anyone objects, I am removing it.  Give Peace A Chance 00:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: "Since nearly all neptunium is produced in this way or consists of isotopes which decay quickly, one gets nearly pure Np-237 by chemical separation of neptunium. After this chemical separation,"
I'm not sure I understand this sentence. --Gbleem 08:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plutonium manufacture 

message: I have seen a three-dimensional version of the plutonium phase diagram that was even more striking that the two-dimensional one shown on this page. Check out figure 16 on page 23 in this PDF. The problem is that this particular version of the diagram seems to be owned by the Metallurgical Society. I wonder if someone would be able to get the data and recreate their own version of it? I don't know how to make 3-D charts of that nature and I don't know where to get the data. But it would be really neat to have one like it, since it really makes clear how different in size and volume the phases can be under different conditions. --Fastfission 22:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plutonium phase diagram

message: 'Nuclear materials workers sometimes call it "plute".' - does this really need to go in the very first paragraph?  There are many interesting things to include in an encyclopedia article about plutonium, but a slang term used by workers doesn't really strike me as being one of them... Tpth 04:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and removed. Femto 11:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers :) Tpth 23:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Plute"

message: Is that section appropriate? Man with two legs 15:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plutonium in fiction

message: I would suggest that the entry "Pu" receives a "disambiguation site" rather than a simple redirect to this site. (Sorry, I don't know yet how to do that, otherwise I'd do it myself.) For "Pu" is the last name of the last ruling Chinese emperor--his name can either be spelt in one word (Puyi) or in two (Pu Yi). While there's already a redirect from "Pu Yi" to "Puyi", I'd suggest to add one from "Pu". --Ibn Battuta 06:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  change "Pu" from redirect to disambiguation 

message: The following bit at the end of "applications" isn't sourced at all. Especially the LD50 ought to be properly sourced. Also the last sentence is quite loaded and uses weasel words and statements like "casts questions". 213.55.27.154 18:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References needed under the applications section

message: Does anyone know the cost of Plutonium? (If you can buy it)..
Just wondering for a science project. THANKS!
I'm pretty sure you can't buy it without some kind of academic credentials.  It'd be pretty expensive in any case.--Elmorell 13:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  COST 

message: Here is a sentence from the article, "The heat given off by alpha particle emission makes plutonium warm to the touch in reasonable quantities; larger amounts can boil water." What isotope is the article referring to (more than one isotope decays by alpha particle emission)? There is a wide variation in the decay rate between isotopes, which suggests that the heat they generate would vary widely, as well. Also, if the article is referring to plutonium-239, boiling water seems unlikely because I have seen people handling plutonium pits with their bare hands. Finally, how much of the heat would come from the Pu-240 that Pu-239 is always somewhat contaminated with? Does anyone have a reference for the claim? -- Kjkolb 11:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All good questions. All the isotopes decay by alpha emission. Ordinary weapons-grade Pu-239 in 6 kg size pits is (by accounts) 10 or 20 C warmer than ambient, and feels like a live animal to handle (so said the Manhattan people, and they weren't even handling super weapons grade stuff which is available today). The more Pu-240 it has in it, the thermally hotter it is, to the point that reactor-grade Pu pits (if you reprocess used fuel rods to try to make weapons) are VERY hot to the touch and hot enough to cause thermal problems in bombs and so on (they'd have to be actively cooled). But apparently a bomb can still be made from them. It might have to be a bomb with a lot of muffin fans in it, like your P4 computer <grin>. But do-able SBHarris 23:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too sure about that. Heat isn't the only problem you know. Setting off the chain reaction too early causing a "fissle" is a greater problem. Seeing that this is sufficiently troublesome to make even weapons grade plutonium require the use of the implosion principle rather than a gun-triggered device would suggest that reactor grade plutonium, containing more than twice the amount of Pu-240 at the very least, would be very difficult to make a functional weapon out of, even ignoring the thermal problems. In any case it would probably be easier to make weapons grade Pu from scratch than trying to use reactor grade material. 213.55.27.154 18:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but Sbharris is wrong.  Not all the isotopes decay by alpha emission.  238, 239, 240 and 242 do.  241 and 243 do not.  As far as boiling water, a small 238 heat source containing PUO2 sits at approx 800C, plenty hot enough to boil water.  Amounts of Pu in pits are classified, and the temperature will depend on what, if anything, is surrounding the pit.  Bare Pu metal is corroded very quickly by water.
Plutonium-238 is the big one from a decay-heat point of view. It's used as the basis for the vast majority of modern Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators. Boiling water with a large enough quantity of the material would certainly be a reality.
AWeishaupt 11:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heat given off 

message: Hello. I've performed the Good Article Review, but must fail the article because it contains a large number of unreferenced facts.
The sections near the bottom - notably "Toxicity" - are not supported by references. Also, there are one or two "citation needed" tags which should be sorted, and the citations for the "Flammability" section no longer work
One or two other minor thoughts
* The introduction says "The most important isotope of plutonium is 239Pu", but does not say how it is the most important.
* The "External links" section needs to be improved and recuced.
If the references issue is sorted, I see no reason for it not to become a GA, and would support it for good or featured article status. --h2g2bob 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I plan to work on the ref issue as well as a general expansion. When I'm done, I will submit directly to FAC. --mav 23:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GAN|Good article review]] 

message: I have always understood that something was 'important' because it had value as an intrinsic characteristic and that something was 'significant' if it had value assigned to it by an outside observer.  Although the words are commonly used interchangably.  In the sentance "The most important isotope of plutonium is 239Pu, with a half-life of 24,110 years."  I think significant works better, as it only has value as we humans use it, not because of it's existance.  Significant makes more senese to me for that reason.  Starkrm 15:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both these are words relating to human judgement, so what's the difference? You're talking about popularity. Neither one is objective, as are attributes such as "common" or "stable".SBHarris 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both versions make sense to me, so I wouldn't have a problem with it being changed. --h2g2bob 23:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Went ahead and changed it. Starkrm 01:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Vs Significant 

message: The two sections on toxicity seem to be inconsistent.  Early in the article is a reference to 5 micrograms per kilogram causing an LD-50 dose of radiation, but later it says that plutonium is less toxic than caffeine, which is routinely taken in mg/kg doses.  Is the latter the chemical toxicity and the former the physical / radiation toxicity?  If so, these two should be better distinguished in the article.
--Zack Subin (student at UC-Berkeley) 24.23.138.158 08:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Professor Bernard Cohen, University of Pittsburgh, offered to test this (provided Ralph Nader took the caffeine!) because he believes that the Pu would pass through the alimentary tract and not be taken up. I realize I'm not really addressing your point, that this should be clearer in the article; it is there, but it could certainly be brought out more. --Old Moonraker 09:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your efforts to remove nonsense. I think the myth of Pu's toxicity needs to be discussed in the article, but the article should not contribute to perpetuating the myth. However, regarding the "dirty bomb," I believe (this is WP:OR, mind you) that Pu-238 could be material for a dirty bomb. --orlady 14:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth be told - a dirty bomb only needs to contain the possibility of any radiological material to cause the sort of panic necessary in order for it to be effective.  The radiological consequence of a dirty bomb is much less significant than the psychological consequences.  Starkrm 21:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toxicity Inconsistency 

message: PuO52- looks octavalent to me. It's eight elements from the noble gas radon so Pu(VIII) would be plausible, if maybe difficult to achieve in practice. I'll let someone else do the experimental verification! Dajwilkinson 00:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heptavalent or octavalent?

message: In the applications section we find
: "The isotope plutonium-238 (238Pu) has a = half-life of 88 years"
Is the equals sign here a typo or a notation involved in half life that I haven't seen before? Molinari 00:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a typo. --JWB 10:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Equals sign?

message: I propose that the "Plutonium in popular culture" be removed. It is simply a list of trivia, giving the appearances that plutonium has made in television shows, movies, books and videogames. Also, it is essentially impossible to reference. You just have to take the word of whoever adds an entry, as the appearances of plutonium in television shows do not usually generate books or articles in newspapers or magazines. To make matters worse, the people who add entries are often anonymous. This might be okay when references are used, but it is very questionable when they are not ("might" because a person can give fake references that cannot easily be found out, which is a problem with all contributions). In addition, the section offers no insights into the subject whatsoever. For these reasons, I do not think that such content is appropriate for an encyclopedia. If we were a popular culture or television site, then it might be appropriate. However, we are not such a site. -- Kjkolb 14:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Plutonium in popular culture" section