Talk:Polonium/Archive 1

message: I removed the current event tag once, and it got re-added, and I can't find who did it to ask the user why. I don't think it should be there, since Polonium is NOT a current event. The poisoning is the event. Information on Polonium isn't going to 'change rapidly'. Maybe if the year was in the late 1800s that would make sense. Dancraggs 01:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current event? 

message: The article states, "The great radioactivity of polonium and its immediate neighbors to the right on the periodic table, and its stark contrast with lead and bismuth, is due to the great instability of nuclei containing 84 or more protons, especially when they also contain 128 neutrons, which causes them to be extremely unstable and rapidly emit alpha particles." However, lead 210 is an isotope with 128 neutrons, and it is primarily a beta emmiter (with some alpha emmition) with a half life of 22.3 years (source). This contradicts the statement that nuclei with a neutron number of 128 are all very unstable alpha emmiters. Polonium 12:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: Po is very nasty, it has an ability to go through glovebox gloves and get into the air. As I understand it, it is worse even than Pu-238. For those who do not know it, if you put a lump of Pu-239 as the sintered dioxide in a glove box or even on your desk (then leave it for a week) then the alpha contamination near will be next to nothing. Do the same thing with Pu-238 and the whole of the inside of the box will be all be active. Po can do the same thing, but it has an even worse reputation than Pu-238.Cadmium
*I was not disputing that it is nasty stuff, simply that 'irksome' is a subjective word, and as such should be replaced with something else in an encyclopedia article which should be objective. StealthFox 23:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irksome 

message: It has been announced that Alexander Litvinenko was killed by a "major dose" of Polonium 210.   --jmb 15:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Metropolitan Police and Health Protection Agency appear to being careful not to say that he was poisoned, they say that they are looking for the source of the Polonium 210. [] []--jmb 17:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: To even things out, shouldn't it be stated that both Putin and FSB had officially denied any involvement?
Why is it even necessary to mention in this article, "Traces of polonium were found in several locations he had visited shortly before becoming ill. [2] Litvinenko on his deathbed blamed his death on deliberate poisoning by the FSB (the successor organization of the KGB) and ultimately Russian President Vladimir Putin. [3]" This paragraph is not about Polonium, but about the who poisoned Alexander Litvinenko and should be moved.Bladeofgrass 11:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am making the following change: The article says Litvinenko was "allegedly poisoned" by 210PO. This isn't factual. He was most certainly poisoned by 210PO, that is a fact. He was allegedly murdered by poisoning. 24.219.97.39 22:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agree with above user, more of a intrest into why it killed him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krishan sood (talk • contribs) 16:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alexander Litvinenko

message: The following two paragraphs under the section Polonium#Precautions are lifted from a listed external link almost word for word:
Polonium is a highly radioactive and toxic element and is dangerous to handle. Even in milligram or microgram amounts, handling polonium-210 is very dangerous and requires special equipment used with strict procedures. Direct damage occurs from energy absorption into tissues from alpha particles.
The maximum allowable body burden for ingested polonium is only 1100 becquerels (0.03 microcurie), which is equivalent to a particle weighing only 6.8 × 10-12 gram. Weight for weight polonium is approximately 2.5 × 1011 times as toxic as hydrogen cyanide. The maximum permissible concentration for airborne soluble polonium compounds is about 7,500 Bq/m3 (2 × 10-11 µCi/cm3).
* Los Alamos National Laboratory – Polonium
--Liulk 03:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be a bit of a problem given that this doesn't appear to be in the public domain . Nil Einne 16:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism in section Precautions 

message: Until a few days ago the article stated that the power output of 1g of Po 210 was 140W. This was changed to 150W by 84.190.155.226 with no explanation (AFAIK). Other references (excluding news sites which may well have taken their figure from wikipedia) state 140W nuenergy.org, jlab.org, while globalsecurity.org states that the power output is 120W/g.
My rough and ready calculation came to 138W, so I am wondering why it was changed and what data is being referenced to support this change? Gloop 15:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably either a mistake or sneaky vandalism. I suggest you change it back given the evidence to the contrary Nil Einne 16:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Gloop 18:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power output of Polonium 210 

message: Why has this article been semi-protected? It wouldn't seem like a high-risk article for vandalism. Alethiophile123 23:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost certainly because of the Litinvenko incident, which is current. Bryson430 19:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the protect? 

message: Most of the article references in the body of the text should be moved to footnotes. Furthermore, many of the facts presented lack any sort of credible reference. --209.189.245.112 13:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: *
*--Stone 09:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References 

message: Can we retain the proper superscripts for isotope references?  The entire reason why 210Po exists is to prevent the tedious re-re-re-use of things like "Polonium-210" in (for example) encyclopedia articles on the subject.  mdf 14:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  superscripts 

message: Do we really need to reference this subject here?  Why not directly reference polonium at the article on Litvinenko, leaving this article to describe the physical substance?  At best, an entry in "See also" is all that is needed here.  mdf 14:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. MWS 17:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Litvinenko 

message: Is the page protection really needed?  There was repeated vandalism from just one IP, which is now blocked.  The person came back under another IP and made just one edit.  I think it's better to block that IP if the person comes back, than protect the page.  There are several IP's trying to edit the article legitimately and the protection is in the way.  67.117.130.181 08:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst this is connected to a current news item, it may be best to keep that semi-protection. -- Beardo 06:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's sufficient reason for semi-protection, which is supposed to be reserved for situations where reverting and blocking vandals is too big a pain, or for certain obscure biographies (not applicable to this article).  See WP:SEMI.  This page shouldn't really be protected, there seems to have been just one recent vandal, who has been blocked. 67.117.130.181 11:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  page protection 

message: Since 1) Polonium has a section on "Toxicity", 2) the WP article on Poisons does not mention polonium, and 3) the specific poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko has its own
WP entry, I am wondering if the section "See also Poisons" is useful for polonium. Lklundin 12:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably not, which is why I just removed it.  mdf 12:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also Poisons" useful ? 

message: In section 210Polonium, "measureing" (sic) corrected to read "measuring". Joegee 18:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Edit

message: Wouldn't that material be better in the gamma/alpha spectroscopy articles?  mdf 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tests 

message: <B>Someone, please fix the misspelled word "platinium" in the middle of the article. I'd do it but the article is in NaziMode(tm) right now and won't let me do my community part. Please delete this afterwards. Thanks ^_^</B>
Could someone please add a few simple lines to the Polonium "Toxic" area, "repacking" the scientific data into a form that everyone else can understand ?  Does it take a teaspoon of Polonium to kill a person ?  A grain-of-sand sized piece ?
What if terrorists dumped a gallon of it into a City Water resevoir ?  The science is nice and all, but it has a purpose other than itself and those that understand it.  This stuff is scary and what people really want to know is can we be killed by small amounts of stuff that can be manufactured by any 3rd-world country with a nuclear reactor and a pack of kooks for a government.
Thanks,
64.148.244.230 05:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Edit

message: "The maximum allowable body burden for ingested polonium is only 1,100 becquerels (0.03 microcurie), which is equivalent to a particle weighing only 6.8 * 10^{-12} gram"
^{210} Po half-life: 138.376 days
1100 Bq / (1 atom / (138.376 days * 24 hours/day * 3600 s/hour) * 6.0221415E23 atom/mol / (210 mol/g)) = 4.59 * 10^{12} g
The 4.59 picogram contradicts the 6.8 picogram figure from the article. I'm not sure what figure is wrong, so I haven't corrected this.
A1kmm 06:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figures are inconsistent 

message: "A few curies (1 curie equals 37 gigabecquerels) of 210Po emit a blue glow which is caused by excitation of surrounding air."
Not necessary to specify an amount. "excitation of electrons of surrounding air" may sound better than what is written.
"A single gram of 210Po generates 140 watts of power."
I would specify "thermic power" otherwise someone dumb will think it is electricity.
Make wiki brackets around "microcuries"
"The majority of the time 210Po decays only by emission of an alpha particle, not by emission of an alpha particle and a gamma ray."
which means that the nucleus that results from the decay is not excited. I don't know, if that should be mentioned.
80.109.194.224 18:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: minor edit 210Po

message: Our professor included an exerpt from this article. Was a fun test. We had to work out the mass it would take to kill 1 st russian ex-spies. PoorLeno 20:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia : Exam

message: 84-2=82 Thallium, presumably.  The Litvinenko article seems bogged down in 210Po becoming Lead, which presumably Thallium eventually does, but not soon.  Worth adding that to the article?  Midgley 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not worth adding, because it is incorrect. Atomic number 82 is lead. Thallium is 81. --mglg(talk) 02:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decays to ... 

message: "A milligram of 210Po emits as many alpha particles per second as 5 grams of 226Ra." When I do a little math, I get about 4.215 grams of radium-226 for every milligram of polonium-210. I'm not an expert in radiation, since that unit was awhile ago in chemistry, so if somebody wants to check my work, go right ahead.
Half life is 1602 years, 584730 days for radium 226.
Half life is 138.376 days for polonium 210.
for radium, 584730 = ln(2)/k
k = ln(2)/584730 = 1.18541409*10^-6
for polonium, 138.376 = ln(2)/k
k = ln(2)/138.376 = .0050091575
for radium, ln(A) = -k*1 + ln(1) after one day, starting at 1 gram
e^(-(1.18541409*10^-6)*1 + ln(1))
A = .9999988146 grams left after one day
for polonium,
e^(-.0050091575)*1 + ln(1))
A = .9950033674 grams left after one day
Out of one gram at the beginning,
in one day, 1.18541336*10^-6 g reacts in radium
in one day, .0049966326 g reacts in polonium
(.0049966326 grams polonium per day/ 1.18541336*10^.6 grams radium per day) = (x grams polonium per day/ 1 gram radium per day)
x = 4215.097263 grams Po per day for every 1 gram Ra per day react, units cancel, Po is 4215.097263 times more radioactive.
For the same level of radioactivity, 4215.097263 grams of radium must react for every 1 gram of polonium.
(1 gram Po / 4215.097263 gram Ra) = (.001 grams Po / x grams Ra)
To have equivalent levels of radiation, 4.215097263 (4.215 when rounded to significant figures) grams of radium must react for every one milligram of polonium. BirdValiant 05:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your calculations look correct, but I think you are forgetting something. From the half-life numbers, it is true that, in one second, 4215 times as many nuclei of Po-210 decay as of Ra-226. However, you also need to account for the fact that Ra-226 nuclei are heavier than Po-210 ones by a factor of approximately 226/210. Thus, the activity from one milligram of polonium corresponds to that of 4215 * 226/210 mg = 4.536 g of radium. Rounded to one significant digit (as seems appropriate for illustration purposes), that does indeed come to 5 g. I'm changing the article back, unless someone finds a further flaw in the above. Hqb 11:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy? 

message: The article does a great job of explaining that industrial alternatives are readily available, to avoid using this dangerous substance merely to supress static electricity. Too good!  The reader would tend to not notice that nonetheless Po-210 is in wide use for such trivial purposes, with no current measures to restrict/phase out.  Can someone come up with some real facts and figures about annual industrial use? See The Smoky Bomb Threat by Peter D. Zimmerman NYT December 19, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/19/opinion/19zimmerman.html 69.87.193.121 15:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Industrial alternatives

message: Text says "Potentially lethal amounts of polonium are present in anti-static brushes sold to photographers.[55] Many of the devices are available by mail order. General Electric markets a static eliminator module with 500 microcuries (20 MBq), roughly 2.5 times the lethal dose of 210Po if 100%-ingested, for US $71;[56] Staticmaster sells replacement units with the same amount (500 mCi) of 210Po for $36.[57] In USA, the devices with no more than 500 mCi of (sealed) 210Po per unit can be bought in any amount under a "general license" [4] which means that a buyer needn't be registered by any authorities: the general license "is effective without the filing of an application with the Commission or the issuance of a licensing document to a particular person."
- I question whether it is responsible for wikipedia to provide this information- it reads like instructions on how to poison someone with polonium. This information could be found by someone with some background knowledge doing a thorough search, but I don't think it should be listed in wikipedia. What use does recording/displaying this information have, other than to someone interested in poisoning people?
--Dr V Jones  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.168.43 (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think mentioning that polonium is used in anti-static brushes and such is fine, but the way it is currently written is excessive. It does read like a how-to obtain polonium for poisoning, which goes against Wikipedia policies (WP:NOTHOWTO). --Itub (talk) 09:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Commercial sources of Polonium

message: Polonium 
Harvey V.Moyer Ohio State University; 
Lloyd B.Gnagey Mound Laboratory, Monsanto Chemical Company;
Adrian J.Rogers Mound Laboratory, Monsanto Chemical Company;
July 1956 
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. 
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=0&page=0&osti_id=4367751
26.241 KB, 401 pag.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.52.35.137 (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production, purification and other chemical, physical and biological characteristic 

message: the text says 'cubic' but the picture looks rhombohedral. compare with oxygen, bismuth.  99.231.208.23 (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain why the :File:Alpha po lattice.jpg (which is the picture in the article) looks rhombohedral? Materialscientist (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

text: True (vertical elongation). Squashed the image, but the balls now look squashed too. Materialscientist (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  crystal structure 

message: Is the word IN here implying that the science is done within the boarders? If yes the category is wrong.--Stone (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category  Science and technology in Poland 

message: The Polonium Restaurant (a Polish restaurant) I think has no place in the article, therfore Ideleted it.--Stone (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polonium Restaurant 

message: On 3 January, 2008, anonymous editor 142.179.116.145 changed the sentence "Polonium has been found in tobacco smoke from tobacco leaves grown with phosphate fertilizers." to "Polonium has been found in tobacco smoke from tobacco leaves grown with phosphate fertilizers, though similar amounts occur in everything from cherries to human tissue."  No additional sources were cited, and I haven't found any confirmation of this elsewhere. I find the "human tissues" claim hard to believe without a specific citation. The "cherries" claim is irrelevant because people don't inhale cherries into their lungs. Finally, the phrase "everything from cherries to human tissue" is meaningless and inherently POV. Cherries and human tissue are completely disparate and it isn't possible to talk about the range of "everything" between them. Without a source to tell us what, exactly, is in this supposed range, I don't see a way that the claim can be rephrased besides "although cherries and human tissue contain comparable amounts", which seems to give undue weight to the significance of cherries and human tissue as standards for comparison. I am therefore removing the claim. mistercow (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tobacco smoke 

message: While there exist polonium-containing compounds that are volatile at low temperatures, polonium metal itself is not, to my knowledge, volatile (do you have a reference?). Since there are many volatile metal complexes (e.g. Nickel tetracarbonyl is one of many), I would be hesitant to consider this unique enough to merit mention in the introductory paragraph.
131.215.55.240 (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polonium Volatility 

message: I've heard conflicting sources from different areas on whether polonium is a metal or a metalloid. I've actually heard from some places that the prevailing scientific belief now is that it is a metal, recently (although this doesn't matter much) my science teacher said the same thing. So what is it? A metal or a metalloid?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.150.191 (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is more a metal than a metalloid. The next element astatine is more a non metal than a metalkoid so this would make the period metalloid free. This has to be disused for some time and than it is ripe to be incorporated into wikipedia.--Stone (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Polonium and Astatine Are Not Semimetals --Stone (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metal or Metalloid 

message: In the section “Po-210 concentration in the body of Litvinenko” it says “The symptoms seen in Litvinenko appeared consistent with an administered activity of approximately 2 GBq (50 mCi) which corresponds to about 10 micrograms of 210Po”.  While in the section “Sources and production of polonium” it says “A freelance killer would not be able to obtain polonium legally from commercially available products in the amounts used for Litvinenko poisoning, because more than microscopic amounts of polonium can only be produced in state-controlled nuclear reactors”  
This sounds like a contradiction to me.  I have not checked the density of Polonium but I suspect that 10 micrograms would be a microscopic amount and therefore there is an implied contradiction in the article.2.219.126.222 (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction over polonium quantity? 

message: Can the article indicate that radon emitted from granite lurks in the basements of houses in granite areas. It is dangerous because Po, as the breakdown product of radon, attaches to dust particles and is inhaled and lurks in the lungs?  This is mentioned in the Po Talk page but not in the article. === Vernon White (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the "Chronic effects" section already states that The general population is exposed to small amounts of polonium as a radon daughter in indoor air; the isotopes 214Po and 218Po are thought to cause the majorityNational Academy of Sciences 1988 report Health Risks of Radon and Other Internally Deposited Alpha-Emitters: BEIR IV, page 5 of the estimated 15,000-22,000 lung cancer deaths in the US every year that have been attributed to indoor radon.National Academy of Sciences 1999 report Health Effects Of Exposure To Indoor Radon Feel free to add a little more (sourced) detail if you think it is called for. --mglg(talk) 19:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if 214Po and 218Po are the natural isotopes of Polonium shouldn't they be in the info box with their natural abundance rather than the synthetic isotopes.  --Henrygb 10:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Residential [[Radon]] and Po 

message: I replaced the sentence about "natural radioactive fallout" by an explanation of how polonium is generated in the atmosphere from radon gas, then falls to the earth and gets incorporated into the biosphere.  The process is somewhat analogous to fallout in the usual sense of the word (radioactive contamination from atmospheric nuclear explosions falling or raining down to the earth), but the word fallout is likely to be confusing because it is almost always used in the context of anthropogenic contamination, so a casual reader might think that polonium is a significant component of fallout from weapons tests, which it isn't, not being a fission product. CharlesHBennett (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  polonium in the biosphere 

message: "clothes" is misspelled in the famous poisoning cases
207.139.237.114 (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 4 July 2012 

message: The Isotope OE83Bi209 is given as the last (Stable) atomic isotope. However it only has 43 extra neutrons whereas EE82Pb208 is stable with 44 extra neutrons. This brings up the question of why a naturally occurring isotope of either EE84Po210 (42 extra neutrons) or EE84Po212 (44 extra neutrons) shouldn't be be more stable than the OE83Bi209.Has anybody examined old samples of EE84Po210 to see if there is any residual indicationa  of a stable Po210 isotope. WFPM68.89.1.0 (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your question. Po-210 and Po-212 don't have isotopes, they are isotopes of polonium. Do you mean whether any of them might have nearly-stable nuclear isomers? I suppose that's possible in principle, but it would seem highly unlikely that they hadn't been discovered yet. In any case, I don't think you can infer anything about potential stability of polonium isotopes by simple comparisons to proton/neutron counts in isotopes of neighboring elements. Hqb (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Bagnall states that although stable Po isotopes have frequently been searched for, George de Hevesy failed to find one, although Hulubei claimed one from X-ray study evidence. Meitner hypothesized a stable isotope around 218Po, but this seems unlikely. Bagnall states that Hulubei's isotope, if it is Po, might simply be a nuclear isomer of an already known Po isotope. Double sharp (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

text: EE84Po218 would consist of 84 deuterons plus 50 extra neutrons and have a stability trend number of A = 3Z - 34, which is above the dominant stability trend in this area. If we use the stability trend line through EE82Pb208, which is A = 3Z - 38, we get for 84Po a value of A = 3x82 - 38 = 214, so the atomic numbers 210, 212, and 214 sound more reasonable. Also Extra neutron values of A = 3Z - An even number divisible by 4 is preferable which would indicate a preference for either A = 210 or 214.WFPM (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation is that, after the 7 stable isotopes of 80Hg and the 4 stable isotopes of 82Pb, a comparison of the stability trends of the 49In to 54Xe series with the 81Th to 86Rn series does not show a reason why the decline in the stability of the accumulated nucleus should be so abrupt. The Elements of the elements 52Te and 54Xe are noted to be able to continue to create stable EE isotopes with increased extra neutrons up to a maximum of 28 for EE54Xe136, and after that the number of stable of extra neutron stable isotopes falls through +26 for EE56Ba138 down to +23 for OE59Pr141. So from a structural standpoint the possibility of stable EE isotopes of 84Po and even 86Rn is apparent. By analogy, the advent of alpha particle emission instability might be suspected to begin with the accumulation of the next 2 deuterons of elements 87Fr and 88Ra due to the structural instability factors involved. It is reasonable to assume that the accumulation processes of the stars probably produced some of everything. That is why the residue (as well as our other nucleus creating activities),should be examined for particularly probable stable isotope possibilities.WFPM (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible stable isotopes 

message: I still find it a rather abrupt ending, ending on a one-sentence paragraph! Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  end of article 

message: To use to expand: .
Also, does anyone have  or ? Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: From John S. Thayer's Chemistry of heavier main group elements: PoF6 has weakened bonding because of relativistic effects. Po(VI) could be more stable in polyfluoride and polyoxide anions. Po(IV) is similar to Te(IV) and forms diketonate complexes like Zr(IV), Hf(IV) and Rf(IV). It is stable in aqueous solution over a wide range of pH. Po(II) is readily oxidized to Po(IV), but also common, and Po2+ coprecipitates with many M2+ salts. Po(III) was claimed but never actually confirmed. Po(V) occurs in , but is unstable; electron transfer happened immediately after, forming PoO2. Gaseous polonium is in diatomic molecules. PoH2 could be Po(−II) instead of Po(II). The other Po(−II) compounds are all polonides. Double sharp (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  polonium chemistry 

message: Several attempts have been made by IP editors to add the breaking news today about Arafat and Polonium. Most have been reverted for lack of a reliable source. A Reuters news report can be found here (and repeated at Huffington Post here), but I am not advocating for the inclusion of this material at this time. I believe that NOTNEWS should apply until this has time to be further developed. Moreover, if that source is to be used, it must be carefully used not to say more than what it actually says, which is that Arafat's wife says that she has received such a report from the Swiss forensics team, and that an expert hired by Al Jazerra has examined the Swiss results and confirmed polonium poisoning. In short, it is a reliable source for what certain people say, not for the truth of what they say. Since this is breaking news and is certain to be more fully fleshed out in the future, that's a particularly important distinction for encyclopedic purposes and is, frankly, one of the reasons why NOTNEWS should probably prevent it from being included right away. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Arafat content concludes he was not poisoned. Why is this in the poisoning cases section? Widefox; talk 01:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arafat 

message: In the lead. I query this statement on 2 grounds. 1) it does not make any chemical sense. 2) it is not supported by any mention of Bi in the text body. Petergans (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be true to some extent, as Po was reported by the Curies to be similar to Bi in their first experiments. Double sharp (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "polonium is chemically similar to bismuth" 

message: "Some of the world's biggest tobacco firms researched ways to remove the substance – to no avail – over a 40-year period
...
Radioactive polonium-210 contained in phosphate fertilizers is absorbed by the roots of plants (such as tobacco) and stored in its tissues"
So, umm....  If you really wanted to remove it, wouldn't you just use a different fertilizer?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.65.84 (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Polonium is also present in the soil as well as other radioactive isotopes such as 238U, 234U, ans 226Ra so it is probably not a just a fertilizer issue. It would be interesting to know how many sieverts per year we are talking about through ingestion and how it compares with radiation from other sources (tobacco smoke, background, air travel) but I haven't been able to find a comparison anywhere. 72.15.34.235 (talk)
Polonium is present in nature - but in tiny amounts(otherwise we would all be dead). Fertilizer must contribute most of the polonium exactly where you don't want it - at the plants roots ( not just tobacco). To fix this would take time - question( how long does polonium take to die out of the soil? Till then we are screwed since this stuff is used on almost all crops. Even raising food "organically" wont make much difference until the soil is "organic".
73.149.116.253 (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phosphate fertilizer 

message: Article states: "A few curies (1 curie equals 37 gigabecquerels, 1 Ci = 37 GBq) of 210Po 
emit a blue glow which is caused by excitation of surrounding air."
Since a curie is a measure of decays, not mass, this doesn't really say anything about Polonium.
One could just as easily say "A few curies of any alpha-emitter emit a blue glow".
It's not saying anything specific to Polonium, so I don't think it should be there.
76.254.25.91 (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polonium glows 

message: In the Applications section, the risk of inhaling Polonium through smoke is highlighted. However, this is not an intentional application. Should this text be moved to the health risks section? 83.84.34.28 (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tobacco is not an application 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Polonium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://kidslink.bo.cnr.it/besta/fumo/epolonio.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thermo.com/eThermo/CMA/PDFs/Articles/articlesFile_16929.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20863878-5001031,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Polonium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.academie-sciences.fr/activite/archive/dossiers/Curie/Curie_pdf/CR1898_p175_178.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.academie-sciences.fr/activite/archive/dossiers/Curie/Curie_pdf/CR1898_p1215_1217.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 12:28, 10 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 06:33, 9 July 2005).
=== Information Sources ===
Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Polonium. 
Additional text was taken directly from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). 
Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.
------
Ok, and what about protactinium it eletroafinity is most higher than any lanthanide or actinide, and it decays to actinium both with half-life of around 30.000 years, they are very very dangerous, and who says it's a poison?, none, because it's scarce!
:old. -DePiep (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Note (2005) 

message: Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Polonium. 
Additional text was taken directly from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). 
Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.
------
Ok, and what about protactinium it eletroafinity is most higher than any lanthanide or actinide, and it decays to actinium both with half-life of around 30.000 years, they are very very dangerous, and who says it's a poison?, none, because it's scarce!
:old. -DePiep (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information Sources 

message: Polonium and technetium are the only two radioactive elements on the periodic table that Greenwood and Earnshaw tries to treat as normal, upright, stable citizens: they cover Po with Se and Te, and Tc with Mn and Re. (Admittedly they also try for Pm and At–Ac, but without much success: there just isn't enough known to say anything.) Technetium is already an FA, so I will instead write here about how to make my beloved polonium a wonderful article!
*History
**We should really talk more about the Curies. Yes, I know everyone knows the story, but that's not an excuse to avoid illustrating it beautifully.
**It is worth mentioning that polonium was the first element that was first identified and found solely by its radioactivity (though it was isolated by Marckwald, who assumed correctly that it would behave like tellurium). (Radium came later and was partially identified by its chemical similarity with barium.)
**BTW, the Curie's statement that polonium shows similarities with bismuth must be explained. I suspect this is more a reflection on metallic character. Like Tl, Pb, and Bi, Po is a metallic conductor with a medium-high density and low melting and boiling points.
*Detection
**This is more about how to find α- and γ-emitters in general than about 210Po. I would move this somewhere else and just note that polonium, like other α- and γ-emitters, can be detected in these ways in another section.
*Occurrence and production
**The focus of production should be 210Po, because, for better or worse, this is the polonium isotope that has told us the most about the personality of the element. This is because it is easy to produce by the reaction 209Bi(n,γ). (You have to use very high-purity bismuth, because 210Po has a short half-life and we don't want to waste time tediously separating it out from all manner of side products, many of which are metals that can form polonides.) And we should mention that (and explain why) this makes it difficult to investigate Po(VI) compounds...
*Application
**Tobacco smoke is not an application of polonium. It is a danger.
More later.
P.S. You can legally buy 0.1 μCi 210Po sources! They are exempt from the regulations! Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: P.P.S. The end of this article is kind of a "laundry list" that is uncertain of what its point is trying to be. What is the main thrust of the last section, which is currently just a list of things that happen to have polonium in them, deliberately or otherwise? (And should not the deliberate cases count as applications?) Double sharp (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

text: I wonder if this has anything to do with how metalloid "salts" have a tendency not to live up to their august reputation, like antimony sulfate? That would seem to suddenly make the case for calling Po a metalloid much sounder! Double sharp (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to make this article not suck 

message: What is the element category for Polonium? The article says "post-transition metal, but this status is disputed".
I always see polonium colored in the post-transition metal category on Wikipedia, but in many periodic tables, polonium is colored as part of the metalloids. 
Why is polonium disputed? --RedLightningStrike (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Metalloid#Polonium gives some explanation. In any case, the boundaries of these categories are quite disputable; they are just a more or less artificial way of dividing up a real variation. Double sharp (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Element Category 

message: 10.1524/ract.1983.32.13.153 Double sharp (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: (Es through Db are 10.1524/ract.1983.32.13.7; Tc and Rn are in that issue too, see https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ract.1983.32.issue-1-3/issue-files/ract.1983.32.issue-1-3.xml.) Double sharp (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemistry review