Talk:Curie (unit)

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Measurement (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement

Microcurie

Is it just me or is the example miscalculated? If 1 Ci = 3.7×10¹⁰ Bq then why is $\mu$ Ci = 2.22×10⁶ disintegrations per minute??? shouldn't it be 1 Ci = 3.7×10⁴ Bq? FtPeter (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just you. First, 1 MICROcurie (not a curie) = 3.7×10⁴ Bq.

Second, there are 60 seconds in a minute. 71.202.109.55 (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why even mention the conversion to the number of disintegrations per minute? Of what relevance is that? Abiermans (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

contradiction: Pierre Curie

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)[reply]

Repeating Decimal

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)[reply]

Megacurie, etc

Should megacurie, kilocurie, etc. have their own pages? I imagine not, unless they have specific examples of levels of each. Otherwise they could be placed on this page, or maybe create an Orders of Magnitude (Radiation) page? Probably not necessary, though. I am retyping some larger orders of magnitude to here for now. (I guess I could have made redirects. Oh well.) Omegatron 19:54, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)why would we be able to change things like weird!!! i could change everything on wikipedia then yeah!!!!!!1

Orders of Magnitude

To find Orders of Magnitude, see:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Pico

curie out of date

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What is considered low, normal, high?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Chem or Phys?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Curie - Marie or Pierre?

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)[reply]

It was named in honour of Marie, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica Alastairward (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was deliberately left ambiguous: How the curie came to be. Hqb (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curie (Measurment)

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)[reply]

Objective bystander logic: No, because kilograms and kilometers (and millimeters and nanometers etc.) have distinct relevancies. If an article about megacuries is simply "1 million curie" its not worth it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.110.120 (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A kilogram is the base unit in the MKS SI system and so has it's own page. A kilometre is the standard 'everyday' measurement of long distances so it has it's own page, even though it is not a base MKS SI unit - the metre is. In the old (but still used) system from which the Curie comes from, a megacurie or kilocurie is rarely used, unless you are talking about the fallout from a large nuclear weapon. Even a Ci is a big unit and in 'normal' use - in medicine, industry, university etc - then the μCi or mCi (microcurie or millicurie) are usually used. Suzy A —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan Anonstrom (talk • contribs) 03:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curies - Roentgens

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)[reply]

Symbol

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)[reply]

The Curie is not an SI unit and therefore does not need to conform to SI conventions on capitals and plurals.78.148.195.135 (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History?

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)[reply]

Requested move 12 June 2020

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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curie → Curie (unit) – 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)[reply]

Support 1 no clear primary topic, although Marie gets significantly more views (172,789) than the unit (3,815) that doesn't show people use the single word when looking for her. Also Curie (rocket engine) gets 1,258 views[[1]] which at any rate suggests the unit isn't primary. So no clear primary topic so its safest to disambiguate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1 – No clear primary topic. Could refer to her, the unit, her husband... etc. When in doubt, disambiguate. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2. Marie is a clear primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Half-life / Mass of 1 curie

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)[reply]