Talk:Plutonium/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Compounds of plutonium

The other actinides that commonly form actinyl cores are uranium and neptunium, and in unusually oxidized forms also Am and Cm. The actinyl moiety is not neutral as written in this part of the posting. The Pu(V)O2(+) and Pu(VI)O2(2+) ions are the two plutonyl ions, which indeed form complexes with carbonate.

Secondly, at least in aqueous solution, I don't believe that nitrite NO2(-) complexes have ever been observed for the plutonyl ions or any of the plutonium ions for that matter. The redox chemistry of nitrite and plutonium would seem to prohibit this. Nitrite anion is actually a well known reagent for the reduction of plutonium from the penta- and hexavalent states to Pu(IV)/Pu(III).

Third, neutralization of Pu(IV) from nitric acid solution does not form PuO2, but a compound of plutonium known as "polymer" or "colloidal plutonium" that is of unknown structure and stoichiometry (see Cleveland's "Chemistry of Plutonium). It is agreed that the oxidation state of polymer is tetravalent but the stoichiometry and structure is to this point unknown. Polymer formation is usually avoided because it is rather intractable. The post is correct that it is formed by the neutralization of acid solutions. PuO2 is formed by heating of the nitrate, oxalate, peroxide, hydroxide, etc salts of Pu(IV) at about 400 C or higher.

Lastly, Pu(VII) is only marginally stable in concentrated alkali solutions, and is produced by the bubbling of O3 (ozone) through the solution. It is not, in my experience, red but actually a blackish blue color. The precipitates of the Sr3(PuO5)2 and Ba3(PuO5)2 complexes, assumed by analogy to be isostructural with the Np(VII) complexes are also blackish blue. Other precipitates of Pu(VII) are reported to be green. Pu(VI) solids can be a brown or red color. Regardless the solutions of Pu(VII) are blackish blue.

The photograph of the plutonium solutions in different acids is not originally from LBNL as stated. The digital version at LBNL is a copy of a photograph from Los Alamos. At least on the photograph I have. I will supply the actual document number later if you wish to change the citation.

The photos were taken by Dave Hobart and Phil Palmer. The citation for the photos is: Hobart, D. E. and Palmer, P. D. (1991) "Color Photographs of Plutonium Aqueous Solutions," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Glenn T. Seaborg Archive, LBNL Image Library, Image Files 96B05591 and 96B05592, Internet web sites:

http://imglib.lbl.gov/ImgLib/COLLECTIONS/BERKELEY-LAB/SEABORG-ARCHIVE/index/96B05592.html

http://imglib.lbl.gov/ImgLib/COLLECTIONS/BERKELEY-LAB/SEABORG-ARCHIVE/index/96B05591.html Ksboland 17:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Taste of Plutonium

I have removed: "Not surprisingly, it has a metallic taste. ref: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/w/welsome-plutonium.html?_r=1&oref=slogin" because taste of chemicals should stay unnoted for safety reasons. Technician who may need that kind of information could easily look into science work papers. --Borislav Dopudja 08:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You do know that in 2006, a Russian journalist named Alexander Litvinenko actually was fed polonium-210, so basically they put it down so nobody would be left hanging and doing pretty crazy, weird, and stupid things...

What's the safety reason, now? --Fastfission 20:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Every indication that some chemical can be tasted, or that it even have a taste must be removed from easily accessible materials. Depending on the amount, practically every chemical is poisonous. And there is also no use of, for instance, knowing that arsenic tastes like garlic. --Borislav Dopudja 12:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could imagine potential uses for knowing that arsenic tastes like garlic (it would give a good poisoner an idea of what sorts of foods would complement it well!), though I can't imagine a potential use for knowing that plutonium tastes "metallic", which is ambiguous to the point of uselessness. But anyway I don't really care either way, I was just curious what your reasoning was. --Fastfission 23:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, plutonium is not so rare as you might think. Technicians who handle plutonium, uranium or other radioactive substances usually are not aware what that really is. --Borislav Dopudja 11:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that information of this type has two sides, like all information. Knowing the taste of chemicals can help you identify spills, leaks, contamination problems, and long-term ingestion poisoning. The garlic sweat and breath has warned many a selenium and telurium worker they weren't being careful enough, long before any damage was done. SBHarris 19:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't spell tellurium correctly. There are two L's, not one;

Hm. Good point. - Although one can expect that someone working with Se and As is aware what that is. --Borislav Dopudja 13:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to have us believe that someone working with a significant quantity of plutonium, a strictly regulated substance which can only be made in nuclear reactors, would try to taste it because they didn't know what it was? I mean seriously... 213.55.27.154 18:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha, no I think the point was if someone accidently injested a particular chemical (e.g. they get it on their hands), they would know. Lightnin Boltz (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not at all sure where this goes, but I've noticed that under the "Selected Isotopes" section, it states that Pu-240 decays by spontaneous fission and alpha-emission. However, when you click on the alpha-emission link, it takes you to the article about Beta-emission. I would fix this myself, but I don't know how Pu-240 does decay, or how to fix it. Thanks 217.42.19.165 (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent spamming?

I have noticed that today this page has been subject to any amount of spamming. Would it probably be a good idea to fully protect it for a while? I know that as a featured article it is subject to a lot of traffic from the Wiki homepage but with the amount of spamming in the past hour alone it could well be confusing for anyone who doesn't know the subject matter. I myself am not entirely familiar with the subject of protecting pages (how to protect pages or even what requires blocking edits for a while) so please could someone else have a look? Lowri (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Toxicity

I feel that this section is somewhat biased. It seems to significantly downplay the dangers of plutonium's toxicity. Although plutonium may not be the "deadliest know substance", it is still something that should handled with the utmost care, something that this section does not stress. Any thoughts? 128.192.57.104 17:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would leave the toxicity section alone. There are a number of people who might look at this article based on the statements by Ralph Nader and the counter statements by Bernard Cohen. Both about the toxicity of Pu. Starkrm 22:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC) 21:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Th toxicity section states that no one has ever died from direct exposure to plutonium. Plutonium was in Fat Man, wasn't it? Many people not in the initial blast radius died later of radiation poisoning, which could only be from exposure to plutonium. Am I missing something?--Elmorell 13:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're certainly missing something.

A nuclear detonation produces a great deal of neutrons and gamma radiation, along with highly radioactive fission products. These would be the significant factors with regards to radiation effects from a nuclear weapon, not the relatively small amount of radioactivity from any left-over Plutonium or Uranium.AWeishaupt 11:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in the Toxicity section: "In addition, beta and gamma emitters (including the carbon-14 and potassium-40 in nearly all food) can cause cancer on casual contact, which alpha emitters cannot." while being true is very misleading. It seems to imply that the K-40 and C-14 in food poses a significant cancer risk. Furthermore, the comparison to food also brings to mind ingestion, in which case alpha emitters are very harmful. I know the sentence refers to the danger on "casual contact", but that is very easy to overlook in this context. Again, I have no beef with the validity of this sentence, but it seems misleading and just plain unnecessary. Beachbumltj 17:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of making smaller more destructive nuclear warheads and easy to transport lightweight atom bombs and certain esoteric energy sources for satellites, spacecraft, and remote earthbound sensors, plutonium makes no sense. Its inorganic half-life, toxicity, and biologic half-life make it the pentultimate toxic compound. The problems with maintanance and long term secure disposal are horrific compared to other nuclear sources that we continually learn more ways to utilize in a safer fashion. Ideally you want a nuclear source easy to handle, shape and machine, store, and develop a manageable life cycle and plutonium is not it. Simply put its time a simple world-wide moritorium be enacted to eliminate its continued manufacture and use. Plutonium is something that never should have been made. This isn't meant to be anti-nuclear technology per-se as one more alternative energy source. But with what we have learned we now know better ways to engineer new reactors and better handle the nuclear fuel cycle more safely and environmentally sound for other radionuclides. Its just amazing that North Korea and Iran seem to be on dual track plutonium and uranium technologies as if nothing has been learned.209.101.236.168 (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is for improving the article, not for stating political views. By the way, there are a number of errors in your understanding of plutonium. Man with two legs (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Plutium

The article says that "technically" the name of the element should be "plutium". That doesn't make any sense, does it? Linguistically, it should be "plutonium" (see the Latin definition here: [1]); "plutium" is not a Latin formation. Can anyone give a good "technical" reason why "plutium" should be preferred? Rwflammang (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the word "technically", as it is a bit subjective. What is true however, is that Seaborg really considered that name but didn't like it. I've added a reference for that. --Itub (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I said above that "plutium" is not a Latin formation, but that is not strictly true. It is not a formation from Pluto, which has a base of Pluton- and so when taking the -ium suffix would be (and is) Plutonium. The base Plut- is found in the name of the classical deity Plutus, the god of wealth. I don't know how much wealth Seaborg thought he might make from plutonium; maybe that's why he said he rejected the name. It's the kind of joke a latinist would appreciate. I don't know how much Latin Seaborg knew. Rwflammang (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal

This article should contain laws regarding plutonium. I cant really find any sources for research on the matter, kind of afarid to really extensivle search tho, im probbally on enough watchlists already —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.158.241 (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

materials which expand when they freeze

Once source claims that melting plutonium increases in density[2]. Should I add plutonium to the list of the few materials which expand when they freeze? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Plutonium is very very daedle!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nintendo 07 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

metal vs metalloid

if the conductivity decreases at lower temperatures, doesn't it mean that it acts as a metalloid? Nergaal (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion w/o a source that says that specifically. --mav (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Glow part needs cites

I like the below passage, but can't find cites for the color of plutonium when it glows. If somebody can find a cite for that, I'd love to put this back in the article:

In both film and television shows, such as The Simpsons, plutonium is often illustrated as a bright green luminous substance similar to uranium glass, or sometimes in liquid form. However, metallic plutonium normally resembles lead, and only certain isotopes of it glow, due to a significant amount of it decaying and emitting blackbody radiation. Even then, the glow is bright orange, not green.

--mav (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

File:Plutonium pellet.jpg? Nergaal (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

While a picture is worth a 1000 words, I don't think it can be used as a citation. --mav (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Color of oxide layer

We had a contradiction between the lede and the body over whether the tarnish Pu forms is gray or yellow. http://arq.lanl.gov/source/orgs/nmt/nmtdo/AQarchive/3rdQuarter08/page3.shtml seems to indicate that PuO₂ can have various colors; my book sources are unhelpful as they give various colors. What do others think is the best solution? --John (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "In moist air or moist argon, the metal oxidizes rapidly, producing a mixture of oxides and hydrides." may need a little clarification to specify that the rapid oxidation is by reaction with water, since the metal also oxidises rapidly in air by direct reaction with oxygen. Plantsurfer (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The following, consecutive sentences, in the presence of the nearby image of Pu burning like an ember, appear to be mutually contradictory. "Oxygen retards the effects of moisture and acts as a passivating agent.[1] Plutonium reacts readily with oxygen, forming PuO and PuO2 as well as intermediate oxides;".

At least, further explanation is required. Plantsurfer (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it. --mav (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

a few removals

as part of a general trimming/correcting of the historical section, I removed the following footnote:

Fat Man's original target was Kokura but, as Kokura was then obscured by clouds, the back-up city of Nagasaki was used. Kokura was re-scheduled for nuclear destruction on August 17 but was spared when the war ended before that date.

this is completely factually true but irrelevant for an article on the element. it is present in the proper article (Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). I don't think it belongs here, which should focus on the aspects specific to the topic of the page and not go every which-way into the many interesting paths of atomic bomb history.

I also removed the following sentence:

On August 11, a second plutonium-based bomb was scheduled to be dropped on Kumagaya but was not ready in time; 6000 tons of conventional explosives were used to destroy the city instead.

I don't think this is accurate, for one. looking up Kumagaya in The Making of the Atomic Bomb turns up no such story about the desire to an atomic bomb on August 11, nor do I find corroborative information about this on the internet. (by contrast, one can easily find that Kokura was the original target for the Nagasaki bomb). I do not have access to the purported reference but it does not sound like a strictly historical work, and I personally doubt it is accurate in this regards (if it really says this). in any case, again, it is irrelevant to an article about plutonium. my understanding is that the second plutonium bomb was not projected as being ready to drop until August 24.

anyway. I hope my explanations here will suffice. if not, let me know. I made some other changes too, as the descriptions for why Pu-240 impurities made the gun-type design infeasible were very misleading, but apparently deleting things (even with a message as to why) is more controversial than just fixing things, even though pruning is the essence of editing. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I made some other changes as well as part of a general brush-up. I endeavored to do these in the spirit of the article as it was already written, hope they are fine. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Overall, great edits and I don't take issues with the removals, given your explanation. But, could you provide a cite for this passage?:

The overall weapon weighed over 4 tonnes, although it used just 6.2 kg of plutonium in its core. About 20% of the plutonium used in the Trinity weapon underwent fission, resulting in an explosion with an energy equivalent to 21,000 tons of TNT.

-- mav (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, think I got it ironed out. Not so sure about template citations but I think someone should have no trouble fixing up my raw ones... --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool thanks - I formated the citations no problem. :) --mav (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful edits, 98.217.8.46. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

one last thought: an ideal picture to illustrate the medical hazard would be a radiograph of a plutonium speck in lung tissue like so [3][4]. I don't know of any free versions. but if someone could track one down, I've never seen a better illustration of the danger of weak alpha emitters (which cannot penetrate skin, but if they end up inside the body just sit there radiating and radiating for years) than this type of photo. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be ideal. Too bad neither is a free use image... --mav (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cost per gram

Twenty years ago or more, the Guinness Book of World Records stated that Pu was the most expensive substance, and actually listed an estimated cost per gram. I don't think they were basing that on the market price in Cold War Eastern Europe black markets, but rather doing some math on the cost of the reactor that would be required to produce it ... who knows. Anyway, if anyone has an estimate on the actual cost per gram of various grades of plutonium, I think it would be of interest. Tempshill (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis - neutrons and deuterons??

The arithmetic doesn't seem to add up for the line in section 0 on synthesis. It isn't cited. Any handy physicists? Midgley (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you quote the passage in question?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Death of Harry K. Daghlian, Jr.

This article says Harry Daghlian died 28 days after his accident but both his biography and the "demon core" pages say 21 days. Which is correct? Robertcornell68 (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"In popular culture" ??

Should there be a reference to "plutonium in popular culture" namely the movie Back to the Future and potentially other pop-culture references?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need a list of every film/book/song/game that uses the word "plutonium"? There's no "Oxygen in Popular Culture" Article. Robertcornell68 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is no "oxygen in popular culture" but there would be no need to--there are no notable references of oxygen in popular culture that I am aware of. However, there are three significant references to plutonium in popular cultre with the movie series. And if "need" were the only rule for inclusion, one could argue that we don't "need" an article on plutonium at all. But "need" is not the rule for inclusion, but "notable" is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Oxygen (disambiguation)" lists several notable articles about oxygen in popular culture. However I too am unconvinced that such a list should be in the main article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If such entries are to be included here they need to be very strictly monitored lest it turns into listcruft. Anything of this nature needs to be verifiably significant; more than a passing mention but something which deals in detail with the subject, and has been referred to in multiple verifiable third-party sources as having done so. --John (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Short answer, no, it's not notable. In popular culture sections are almost always unnecessary and unencyclopedic. A popular movie series that offhandedly uses plutonium in the plot of its movie has no relevance on this scientific article at all. The Back to the Future article wikilinks to this article, that's enough. And by the way, a search on Back to the Future reveals plutonium is mentioned a total of three times in that article, all in the plot section, and not in the lead section at all. It's hardly even overly important to that article, let alone this one. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Heavens no! LonelyMarble explains why well. --mav (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

just asking... golly gee whiz!--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How about a citation for this judgment call?

"although its overall toxicity is sometimes overstated" Who let this sentence fly on the front page? It just reflects on wikipedia's credibility, [[5]]

Not enough room in the lede, let alone the TFA summary of the lede, to get into more detail. The article body does go into more detail. Either way, I think this goes under the "When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify." exception. Perhaps adding "media reports" or "popular media" will make the sentence more informative in the lede. --mav (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It can break apart

The words, 'it can break apart', that I have changed in the lead section are inaccurate and misleading, they suggest some sort of mechanical disintegration rather than nuclear fission. There is nothing that comes before this statement that indicates that it is fact the nuclei of its atoms that break apart. Of course, that may be obvious if you already know that, but it is not if you don't. The text needs to be clear on this point. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Toxicity, again

I’ve got to take issue with this:
I can see why you’d object to statements like “Plutonium is the most toxic substance known to man”, which happily ignores poisons (Arsenic?), venoms (Funnel-web spider?) or nerve agents (Sarin?); but
“ caffeine is more toxic than plutonium”?
Are you seriously suggesting drinking coffee is more harmful than drinking Plutonium? I know that, like a lot of stuff in the Chemical industry, Pu can be safe if it’s handled correctly, but (like them) that doesn’t stop it being pretty nasty if it isn’t. And the talk of milliSieverts etc is a masterpiece of obscurity; this is an encyclopaedia, where people with little knowledge of a subject (like me) come for a clear, general view of a subject, and get ideas where to look for more information. In large quantities Pu is a radiation hazard; in small quantities it’s a carcinogen, isn’t it? How bad is it? As bad as Asbestos? Tobacco smoke?
This bit needs changing, if only to avoid the appearance of a POV smirk. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The point made in the article is that the chemical toxicity of plutonium is low. In other words if it were not radioactive it would not be very toxic. This could be made clearer. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed the para to: "Isotopes and compounds of plutonium are toxic to highly toxic due to their radioactivity. However, the chemical toxicity of the element itself is lower than arsenic or cyanide and about the same as caffeine." Hope that helps. --mav (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that we use a less toxic example that arsenic or cyanide so that we have a smaller range for the toxicity of Plutonium. Many things are less toxic than cyanide. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Noted, but those were the only three mentioned in the cited ref. Another ref will need to be tracked down... --mav (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I could be clearer
To say “ if it were not radioactive it wouldn’t be very toxic” is a bit of a red herring: If Foxgloves didn’t contain Digitalis they wouldn’t be poisonous; but they do, so they are. And (correct me if I'm wrong) Pu doesn’t exist in a non-radioactive state, does it? Doesn’t it decay into something else entirely?
So I’m suggesting the comment about chemical toxicity is misleading.
(You might as well say "Arsenic is only posonous because it causes organ failure; from a radiation point of view it's less dangerous than coffee.") Moonraker12 (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, here is why arsenic is poisonous:

First, the arsenic replaces most of the phosphorus in the body. The good news is, arsenic is nearly as versatile as phosphorus, so most bonds phosphorus can do arsenic can do also. However, arsenic is not just as good at it, and it cannot bond in some places phosphorus can (arsenic is less reactive). Therefore, since there is no phosphorus, some vital proteins cannot be created, which causes the organ failure. This also is why antimony is poisonous, which is even LESS reactive than arsenic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.128.36 (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is to most people, when you say "toxic" they think in terms of chemical toxicity. The radioactive aspect of plutonium has nothing to do with the chemical aspect. Arsenic causing organ failure is the mechanism by which it is toxic. Your are right that from a radiation point of view arsenic is no more dangerous that coffee or water, but most people are not nearly as familiar with radiation as they are with chemical toxicity, so pointing out plutonium's toxicity is due to (mostly) its radioactivity makes sense; pointing out that arsenic is non-radioactive doesn't make sense as there isn't much potential for people becoming confused about arsenic. There is quite a bit of potential for people to be confused about why plutonium is toxic (whether it is chemically toxic or most of the toxicity is due to its radioactive nature.) The Seeker 4 Talk 15:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well fair enough, but it still seems like splitting hairs to me. And that's is my point, really; it looks like an attempt minmize the danger. A more realistic example would convey the point without sounding like a whitewash. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

One way to think about this is "what would make a good poison?" Caffeine would make a great poison, ditto nicotine. You don't need very much at all to kill someone—the amounts we "safely" consume are amazingly tiny, and the amounts to make them deadly as well within our reach (you can pretty easily calculate how many cigarette packs worth of nicotine will kill you, or nicotine gums, or etc.). Plutonium would make a very bad poison—you'd need a relatively large amount to actually kill someone on the spot, within a few days. Now, this is different than its radiological dangers. If you get some plutonium in your bones and lungs, it will eventually give you cancer, and the cancer might kill you. That's not good. But it's not the same thing as being toxic, and on a scale from 1 to 100 in terms of being dangerous, it's not as close to 100 as many very common household items.

It's dangerous and a difficult substance to work with but not nearly as much as it gets hyped up to be. The public perception of plutonium is that it will kill you right out just to be near it. That's not true. The public perception is that it's the "most deadly substance in the world." That's not true. And most people don't understand that most of the radiological dangerous from small amounts (e.g. not a critical mass) of plutonium are very long-term, as it is not terribly radioactive (compared to, say, fission products, which will give you radiation poisoning). It's a long-term, slow thing. It's the sort of hazard that asbestos is—you don't want to be around it for any amount of time, but you're not going to keel over dead from coming into contact with it.

If you are in contact with plutonium but don't inhale it, don't get it into your blood stream—it's not so much a problem. The radiations it emits are not very powerful. Compare this to, say, spent fuel rods, which will kill you if you go near them at all, the sort of thing that if put in the middle of a rain forest will create a nice radius of dead plants and animals. There are two different types of radiological threats—those that kill you quickly, and those that can get into your body and just radiate for decades. Plutonium is the latter. It's an important distinction, especially if you are concerned about the environmental threats of nuclear power and waste. Plutonium is not that toxic—but it is very persistent. That's a problem.

Do you see the distinction? That's what we're trying to convey. Plutonium, per mass, is less toxic than caffeine. That doesn't make it safe. What we could use is a relative analog to how toxic it actually is, not just what it is not—in between caffeine and what? --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this note. It is one of those public hypes as nuclear reactors, etc., i.e. fear of unknown. It takes education to understand that, and we might hope to bring it with wikipedia. Your help is very much appreciated ! Materialscientist (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Thanks for your comments:

And yes, I can see your point, believe it or not; but can you see mine?

If the public perception really is that Pu is “the most toxic substance known to man” (arguable), then saying “Pu is actually less toxic than coffee” isn’t going to do the trick. It sounds like a whitewash, like you’re trying minimize the problem.

If OTOH you say "Pu won’t kill you outright, like cyanide, but is similar to asbestos or tobacco smoke in its toxicity/effect", (my original point) then that is credible; people can grasp that.

If you really want to get the message across, you'll need to start where people are.Moonraker12 (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The article seems quite clear as it is on the distinction between the chemical and radiological toxicity of Pu. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Pu-238 fission

The article, in the end of the section "Nuclear fission", says:

The isotope plutonium-238 (Pu-238) is not capable of undergoing nuclear fission easily, although it will undergo alpha decay.

This appears to be untrue, as the tables at [6] indicate. For thermal and resonance region neutrons, Pu-238 does have much lower (but still non-negligible) fission cross section than Pu-239, and very high capture cross section. But for fission spectrum neutrons (typically 1-2 MeV), Pu-238 has a higher fission cross section than Pu-239 (capture is also higher than in Pu-239, but 16 times lower than fission). The critical mass of Pu-238, given in [7] is about 10 kg - the same as Pu-239. --217.173.180.201 (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Where do we get plutonium for our bombs

The article carefully describes the use of plutonium fuel for power plants, but it does not describe the reactors or the process for creating and extracting plutonium for nuclear weapons. The article seems to imply that we have little to fear if Iran builds a power generation plant, because the spent fuel would not be suitable for conversion to nuclear weapons. Is that really true or can they separate the 238 plutonium in the spent fuel? If it is true then what type of plant would tell us they were trying to develop nuclear weapons?

In other words, what are we concerned about the type of power plant, the reprocessing process or both? This article needs more information to help the average citizen read and make sense of the crap coming at us about the latest "weapons of mass destruction." 96.252.103.113 (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a section on production. Plutonium 239 is revealing, too. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Heat Release

The article states the following which is clearly wrong:

"Heat given off by the release of and deceleration of these alpha particles make a mass of plutonium of about four hundred millimetres diameter[dubious – discuss]warm to the touch while a somewhat larger mass can boil a liter of water in a few minutes, although this varies with isotopic composition."

This diameter represents a 670 kg mass which is over 50 times larger than critical mass. Even if King Kong could lift 670 kg, he would be vaporized instantly in the nuclear explosion. Actual warhead pits on the order of 8 cm diameter and 5 kg mass are warm to the touch. An expert should insert accurate figures here. Actual power figures for a given diameter would be nice. Trojancowboy (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the proper decay heat for a warhead core. I think that it is a myth that ²³⁹ Pu can boil water. It is highly unlikely that you can insulate a container of water well enough to keep most of the 10 watts inside the water when the temperature of the beaker has reached 100 C. Even if you could, the insulation would keep you from seeing the boiling. Much larger masses will reach criticality and blow up.

The situation is entirely different with 5 kg of ²³⁸Pu. It releases 2,871 Watts and would glow in red heat. This is comparable to the amount used in nuclear power sources for spacecraft.

Trojancowboy (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Heat Energy Storage

The Power and Heat Source section states the following which is clearly wrong:

"while one kilogram of the isotope can generate 22 million kilowatt-hours of heat energy."

²³⁸Pu has a decay heat when fresh of 574 Watts per kilogram. A half life of 87.5 years is 126.2 years to 1/e. Integrating the decay to infinity gives a total energy of 574 watts * 126.2 years. With 8766 hours per year this is 635,400 kw hours. The figure given is 34 times too high. Trojancowboy (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought: Pu-239 decays to U-234 which has a half-life of 246,000 years. I don't know heat release by U-234, but for natural uranium it is 0.1 watts/tonne. If we assume that U-234 and U-238 have same kWatt*hour release, we roughly get 4.468 billion years (U-238) x 0.1 mWatt x 8766 (hrs/year) ~ 4 million kWatt*hr (which becomes 6 considering 1/e correction). This is already closer to 22. Materialscientist (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You both mean Pu-238 above, of course, not Pu-239. No, the figure is wrong, even counting decay products. You can figure each Pu-238 decays to Pb-206 + 8 alphas + 12 electrons (4 of these betas, but this doesn't matter for the calculation). Subtract the mass of Pb-206 + 8 alphas + 12 electrons from the mass of Pu-238 and you get 52.593 MeV. Which, unless I've messed up someplace, is 2.12e13 J per kg or 5.90e6 kw*hr. So less than 6 million kw-hr per kg even if you go all the way to Pb-206 counting all energies of all alphas, betas, etc. It's just not going to do more. SBHarris 05:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I saw that before but forgot to change 239 to 238 .. My intuition agrees that there is some miscalculation in literature (decay products can't give 10 times more power than the primary), which is copy/pasted from book to book, and I'm going to comment out this part in the article. Materialscientist (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This was a big improvement by Materialscientist. He makes a good point. Everybody copies from everyone else. That is why I redid the calculations. It is good to have someone else check them. The total heat energy storage of a piece of plutonium is academic trivia which merely confuses the issue. The only things that matter are the heat output when fresh and the half-life.Trojancowboy (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Decay Power

There is some confusion on this subject. Daughter isotopes can give off much higher power than parent isotopes or vice versa. Most decays of significance for power calculations are alpha decay of about 5 Mev. This represents a velocity for this helium nucleus of about c/20. What determines power is the half-life of the alpha emitter. In general, short half-lives have a high decay power and long half lives have a low one. For a given mass, short half-lives have many decays per second and long half-lives have few.

Almost all alpha and beta decays are absorbed inside the bulk mass of the emitter and heat it. Alpha is ordinarily the only high energy decay. Gamma radiation and neutron emission are different. For small samples, they totally escape and heat the surroundings, not the emitter. Such emitters are worthless for heat sources as well as producing dangerous radiation. Trojancowboy (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, instantaneous power can be much higher for daughter products, but I was talking about time-integrated power (which we were calculating above), considering that gamma or neutrons do not dominate this decay (alphas or electrons are same here in terms of absorption because 1 kg of material is thick enough). Materialscientist (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

SIPRI

The article contains this statement, sourced from the anti-nuclear organization SIPRI:, "SIPRI estimated the world plutonium stockpile in 2007 as about 500 tons, divided equally between weapon and civilian stocks, but all weapon-usable.". It repeats the old fallacy of reactor-grade Pu being a proliferation concern.

While it is true that fuel-grade Pu can be used, by a state or organization capable of advanced designs, this is not true for reactor-grade material. At levels this high of ²⁴⁰Pu poisoning, you have to not only content with the timing issues from spontaneous fission, but the isotopes lower neutron multiplication factor. No nuclear state in the world -- even the US and Russia -- has ever sucessfully tested a design with ²⁴⁰Pu levels higher than somewhere between 10-15%.

The SIPRI claim about total world Pu stockpiles may well be accurate, and if other editors feel it should be left in, I have no objection. FellGleaming (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

On wikipedia we have to ensure that all information is verifiable by reliable sources. Anything that cannot be verified is liable to being removed. Thank you for spotting the erroneous information. Since the SIPRI has a clear bias towards anti-nuclear its sources may not necessarily be entirely reliable. Therefore it would be better to find a neutral source that can back up their assertions. Cheers, Jdrewitt (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

Could be as small as an actual shirt button or larger than a soda can

Proposed replacement

The currently used infobox image has two basic problems, first there is no way of knowing how big it is. Second, and probably most importantly, it's confusing. A couple of people I've talked to thought the picture showed a button of Pu which had been sliced to reveal a shiny unoxidized part. (I pointed out that the inside should be shiny too, since it wasn't this meant it was something besides Pu.) To solve both problems I uploaded a picture including somebody's hands (for scale) and no guessing as to what is/is not Pu. Anynobody(?) 21:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The salt on the bottom of the first image is misleading, but the replacement has many problems - mostly in distracting details (hands and plastic). Size is not crucial here because both samples could have different scales, from buttons to blocks. We can use the image on the right though. Please comment. Materialscientist (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm cool with your suggestion too, it certainly shows the scale and it's impossible to miss the Pu :) (Usually I'd agree that the size of a sample in an infobox is irrelevant, but folks might wonder if the amount of Pu they're looking at is enough for a bomb, fuel rod, or just a sample.) Anynobody(?) 04:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the current image at all. The image with the gloves is better but is a bit distracting, it would be better to show an image just of the element. Materialscientist's image is much better except it isn't in colour which I think it ought to be. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Changed the image to the right one until a better one is found. I'm afraid it is a scan of an old b/w print, thus no colors. Materialscientist (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this one: [8]? A higher-res version should be available from the DOE (via contact info on the site) if we want to use it. I like that it gives the scale and appearance quite well but in an interesting, yet not-distracting way. To get the caption ("Rocky Flats - Plutonium Button") and info, look up image #2000032 in the "advanced search" here. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Amazingly old vandalism

Wow! In March 2008, an anonymous IP added "Zachary M. Tatom" to the list of discoverers of plutonium. (The aforementioned IP then went on to vandalize another article in a fairly overt fashion.) Suspicious that such a prominent scientist should have had a red link, no? Don't worry, another regular contributor quickly tagged the addition as needing citation. Eventually someone plugged a general "discovery of plutonium" article as a replacement for the "citation needed" tag (they are so troublesome to look at), without bothering to check if it actually said what the article said, and there this "fact" has sat, in an article that has had considerable editing done to it since then, including being designated a "featured article" in December 2008 and passing a peer review in January 2009. And yet our Dr. Tatom continued to have a nice bright red link and literally zero hits for his name on the internet except for pages which have haplessly copied this hapless article. All bugs are shallow... if anybody actually bothers to look into them, even when they are really obvious. A sad showing for us all...  :-/ ("Well, at least YOU caught it! Thus the system works! Hooray!") --Mr.98 (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Morris Perlman

Perlman, recently deleted, worked with Seaborg later, in identifying naturally occurring Pu. Is he worth reinstating, this time in his right context?--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think he deserves mention; a single subordinate clause and a reference helps provide access to the experimental evidence. Ray Van De Walker 19:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Half-Life of Plutonium-238

The first paragraph of the article states "Plutonium-238 has a half-life of 88 years and emits alpha particles.". Further down the page we discover "The isotope plutonium-238 has a half-life of 87.5 years.". Meanwhile the actual Plutonium-238 page informs the reader that "Plutonium-238, is a radioactive isotope of plutonium with a half-life of 87.7 years.". While I don't know that there are many aging scientists having waited patiently for 87.5 years for their sample of plutonium-238 to reach it's half-life, only to discover that they have a few months longer to wait, I do think that consistency is best. Surely someone has an in-term or two and a stopwatch to spare? 94dgrif (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Corrected to 87.74 yrs. Materialscientist (talk) 07:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory

The lead of the article refers to plutonium as a synthetic element, then later refers to an isotope present in nature. This is at the very least confusing. jlodman 06:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlodman (talk • contribs)

All synthetic elements are present in nature. Synthetic merely means that most of this element on earth is produced by humans. Materialscientist (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the distinction is present in nature without human artifice, vs. otherwise. Pu-244 is present on Earth even if not made artificially. as a primordial isotope. For all I know, a little Pu-239 gets made in U-238 every time it absorbs a neutron made by a cosmic ray or a spontaneous U-235 fission. I don't know if this has been detected, but Pu-244 certainly has. SBHarris 07:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Trace amounts are found in nature, but on Earth most of its presence is synthetic. It was initially considered to be wholly synthetic, but after looking for it a bit, it was later found. See the "occurrence" section. I don't know what the proper terminology is; I've seen it sometimes listed (along with all transuranics) as being "synthetic", but other places I've seen it listed as the last of the "natural" elements. Some of this comes down to definitions. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In my mind if Pu is found in nature at all, it is not synthetic as a class, but Pu may also be made synthetically. One would never refer to diamonds as a class as synthetic even if most diamonds are eventually made that way. -- jlodman 23:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a good argument because "synthetic" is used differently with chemicals/minerals - there it is added to accentuate that the material does exist as natural but the synthetic form is meant. For example, silicon nitride is called silicon nitride, not synthetic silicon nitride. We know that it is likely synthetic, but it does exist in nature in very small amounts. Same with SiC and many others. Materialscientist (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is quite a good argument. You are redefining the word "synthetic" to indicate whether or not most of the substance is natural or human produced. Pu is not a "synthetic element", though samples can be created synthetically, any more than any other element produced through human means would be synthetic if they occur in nature. The synthetic elements are those that specifically do not exist in nature. Pu is not one of them, as the article clearly states further on. - jlodman 04:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlodman (talk • contribs)

This matter must be dealt with because there is definitely a contradiction here. An element can either be synthetic or naturally occurring, but not both. Whether or not PU can be synthesized (which obviously it can) has no bearing on it being defined as naturally occurring versus synthetic. Since plutonium exists in nature apart from man's influence, plutonium cannot be labeled as a synthetic element. Dtobin123 (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Lide, D. R., ed. (2005). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (86th ed.). Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. ISBN 0-8493-0486-5. considers plutonium, polonium, etc., as natural elements. Materialscientist (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

High-temperature semiconductor?

I recollect reading in Nature, perhaps in 1998 to 2000, that plutonium is a high-temperature (above 700K) semiconductor, with it's semiconducting behavior controlled by, among other things, magnetic fields. Can anyone else confirm?

Thank you. Hattiffatner (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This comprehensive document apparently doesn't mention it. Materialscientist (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Thank you. The document does mention that Pu transitions to a body-centered-cubic (bcc) form at around 700K... I'm frustrated that I can't find something which I thought I'd once seen. Perhaps there is discussion of it here? My apologies. I don't have a Nature subscription at the moment, so can't check myself. Hattiffatner (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What in the world is a high temperature semiconductor, anyway? I've heard of high temperature superconductors, but surely plutonium, as a metal, is a conductor at all temperatures? SBHarris 17:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

@Hattiffatner. I've got access to your link now. It says "The uniqueness and complexity of plutonium's electronic structure has a profound impact on its physical properties, and results in some very unusual behaviour. Between absolute zero and its melting temperature (639.4 C), it has six distinct stable crystal phases. In its alpha phase its thermal expansion is around five times that of iron, and in its delta phase actually contracts with heating. And although metallic, as it is cooled between 300 K and 100 K its electrical resistivity increases like a semiconductor." - i.e. not semiconductor; an unusual, though not unique, R(T) for a metal. Materialscientist (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Organization of uses

The "uses" paragraph is growing a little too big. It needs to be a separate section. Since paragraphs usually talk about a single topic, in this case, each use of Plutonium, it's better to break it up into several paragraphs. Please do not delete "empty lines" in that section, because these empty lines are how Wikipedia separates paragraphs. Ray Van De Walker 19:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 134.253.26.6, 21 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Citation [65] is missing |date= March 3, 2010 |title= Department of Energy Files Motion to Withdraw Yucca Mountain License Application |publisher= Department of Energy. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Tab title starts with "Wikipedia

Many other articles lead to a different Tab tiitle "Article title - Wiki...

which reads better than the Tab "Wikipedia - (possibly cut here, if many tabs are shown) ...

If Tab is active, Title on top of the window starts correct with "Plutonium - Wiki...

is someone able to repair that deviation? thank u! On MacBook with Mac OS 10.5.8 (2009) with Safari 5.0.5 (2010) --Helium4 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Plutonium/ Masse volumique

Vous écrivez : "Plutonium is the heaviest primordial element". L'osmium (Os > 22,6 g/cm3), le rhénium (Re > 20,8 g/cm3), le platine (Pt > 21,4 g/cm3) sont plus lourds que le plutonium (Pu > 19,8 g/cm3). Heaviest, oui, s'agissant de la ... masse atomique. Salutations, dige@orange.fr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.147.107.39 (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"heaviest" n'est pas la masse volumique, mais le nombre de masse. Materialscientist (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

chemcical toxicity

Removed from article: "Based on chemical toxicity alone, the element is of equal or superior toxicity than arsenic, cyanide or caffeine."

The one online reference of the two provided actually says the opposite of this sentence. Are there any clear statements of chemical toxicity? LD50 (for chemical effect alone)? Rmhermen (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the only source for the "plutonium not toxic" claim is Bernard L. Cohen, who is a controversial figure in nuclear science. Therefore, writing the wiki entry in passive voice fails to convey that his ideas are controversial, at best, and thoroughly discredited by international bodies of scientists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.154.81 (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Nagasaki

Post the Nagasaki bomb the industry insertion in article, (no inhalation deaths ever) seems counter-factual, and should be removed or re-sourced to a reliable independent source

i.e., that:

"... no human is known to have died because of inhaling or ingesting plutonium, and many people have measurable amounts of plutonium in their bodies.[76] ...

[76] a b WNA contributors (2009-03). "Plutonium" World Nuclear Association. Retrieved February 28, 2010.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 19:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

COMMENT: Nagasaki had the plutonium exposure. You may not like the information source, but I don't know of any good evidence to the contrary. It isn't all that counterintuitive, since only 5 kg of Pu-239 was dispersed over Nagasaki, and it's not obvious that we should have been any direct effects of its inhalation.

Atomic bomb survivors had cancer increases at a number of different sites in the body, including the lungs, but the increases are all adequately explained by neutron or gamma radiation at the time of exposure, or to exposure to fission products in fallout, rather than the actual bomb material (inhaled U-235 for Hiroshima and Pu-239 for Nagasaki). The reason is that the lung cancer incidence increases were no different between Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or in comparison to other cancers not caused by inhalation), despite the fact that Pu-239 is about 30,000 times more radioactive and dangerous as an inhalent than is U-235. Even correcting for the fact that the U-235 Hiroshima bomb contained 10 times the amount of fissile material, and scattered perhaps 12 times more after the explosion, the Nagasaki plutonium ("fat man") bomb should still have dispersed 3,000 times as much direct alpha radiation from the bomb material. If this really caused cancer by direct inhalation of unfissioned material, this should have produced a great spike of lung cancer deaths in Nagasaki (due to Pu-239) relative to Hiroshima. This has been looked for, yet not found. [9]. Thus we conclude that this mechanism of death in humans is theoretically possible, but there is no good evidence that it has ever actually occured. By contrast, death in humans from from actinide inhalation (radon inhalation in uranium miners) is well-documented. This is a result of a greater total exposure, however. Since nobody mines plutonium, it hasn't been seen for plutonium. SBHarris 22:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The "International Agency for Research on Cancer", (IARC, an extension of the World Health Organisation) lists plutonium as "Group1: Carcinogenic to humans". See Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogetic risks to humans). In Studies of cancer in Humans, Volume 78 (2001), Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Some Internally Deposited Radionuclides the cancerigenous effects of plutonium are summarized:

... the demonstration of dose-response relationships for different cancer types over a broad range of doses in both men and women provides strong evidence that exposure to plutonium at sufficiently high levels is associated with an increased risk for cancer. (p. 218)

If a WHO agency says plutonium is carcinogenic, that's good enough for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.120.96.196 (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Description of energy

One paragraph states:

"Plutonium-239 has a multiplication factor (k) larger than one, which means that if the metal is present in sufficient mass and with an appropriate geometry (e.g., a compressed sphere), it can form a critical mass.[20] During fission, a fraction of the binding energy, which holds a nucleus together, is released as a large amount of thermal, electromagnetic and kinetic energy; a kilogram of plutonium-239 can produce an explosion equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT.[8] It is this energy that makes plutonium-239 useful in nuclear weapons and reactors."

It says "released as a large amount of thermal, electromagnetic and kinetic energy". But, surely thermal and kinetic energy are the same thing on this scale? Does this bit need rewording?90.199.197.93 (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the writing is sloppy, but the neutron radiation released is neither electromagnetic nor thermal energy; a worse expression could be found than kinetic energy. (Would you like to try to improve it?) Jay L09 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Too a stab at a fix. Most of the initial E is pure kinetic energy, but not distributed in a "thermal" spectrum (heat is statistical). That doesn't happen until it hits other materials and entropy does its job. When energy is distributed into thermal degrees of freedom, it finally is transformed to thermal energy. SBHarris 21:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I raised the original question about the wording and I would suggest removing "thermal" from the text. I am not expert enough to have confidence to make the actual changes but I am happy to raise these issues of wording for discussion.90.199.197.93 (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed in a later section the text says: "Plutonium-239 has a multiplication factor (k) larger than one, which means that if the metal is present in sufficient mass and with an appropriate geometry (e.g., a compressed sphere), it can form a critical mass.[20] During fission, a fraction of the binding energy, which holds a nucleus together, is released as a large amount of electromagnetic and kinetic energy (much of the latter being quickly converted to thermal energy). Fission of a kilogram of plutonium-239 can produce an explosion equivalent to 21,000 tons of TNT.[8] It is this energy that makes plutonium-239 useful in nuclear weapons and reactors."

Here the important bit is "...released as a large amount of electromagnetic and kinetic energy (much of the latter being quickly converted to thermal energy)." This seems like a better bit of wording as it descibes the energy being electromagnetic and kinetic which is then converted to thermal. I would suggest changing the wording in the queried part to match this. 90.199.197.93 (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fission

The article says: "Plutonium is an element in which the 5f electrons are the transition border between delocalized and localized; it is therefore considered one of the most complex elements.[17] It is a radioactive actinide metal whose isotope, plutonium-239, is one of the three primary fissile isotopes[18] (uranium-233 and uranium-235 are the other two);[19] plutonium-241 is also highly fissile. To be considered fissile, an isotope's atomic nucleus must be able to break apart or fission when struck by a slow moving neutron, and to release enough additional neutrons in the process to sustain the nuclear chain reaction by splitting further nuclei."

The part that I would like to query was "...or fission when struck by a slow moving neutron,...". Is the speed of the neutron pertinent? Surely an isotope which fissions from a fast moving neutron (such as in a fast breader reactor or a nuclear bomb) is just as good a candidate for the definition of fissile?90.199.197.93 (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The speed of the neutron is pertinent. Neither candidacy nor electioneering will change the definition of fissile. Nuclides which can be fissioned by fast neutrons are called fissionable; only fissile nuclides can be fissioned by slow neutrons. — Jay L09 (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

WIkipedia Book in PDF

After adding several article links to the Book:Plutonium, I made a PDF render and uploaded it to Commons at File:Plutonium Wikipedia book.pdf in case anyone wishes to read it in that form. See Book talk:Plutonium#PDF uploaded for more details. -84user (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bretscher/Feather

Someone might at least mention that Egon Bretscher and Norman Feather, both at the Cavendish Laboratory in 1940, had at least some notability as far as the discovery of Plutonium goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Trinity test, Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs

The Wikipedia page "Manhattan Project" states that enriched U-235 was used for these bombs instead of the Pu-239 mentioned in this article. Youjaes (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just looked at the "Manhattan Project" article. I don't see any statement that uranium was used for Fat Man or Trinity. Little Boy (the Hiroshima bomb) was indeed a uranium-based bomb, as stated by both this article and the "Manhattan Project" article. If you can point me to a specific sentence in the text that you believe is incorrect, that would be helpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Right Wing Sources Legitimate?: Bernard L. Cohen, Petr Beckmann, Russ Paielli

The issue of Plutonium's safety in this article appears to be mostly maintained by references (at least one of them which is now dead and points to nothing) taken from Bernard L. Cohen, Petr Beckmann, and Russ Paielli. All 3 of these people have their work published in right wing, pro-industry sites and forums, and the latter two hold right-wing cold war views and prescribe all the right wing prejudices, and even extremist positions. I know people have argued that it doesn't matter where a source comes from so long as it is credible, but would it be fair if the opposite were said and the sources were all clearly left wing sources? I thought Wikipedia was not Conservapedia, and was intended to be at least balanced, objective, and non biased. I would at least like to know why, if these statements are true, would they come exclusively from right wing conservative and pro industry sources, and why if there were some left wing conspiracy to make people misunderstand nuclear power would all the "communist" countries have nuclear programs? (it's more realistic to observe that the greater the lack of democracy whether it is party-ideological or pro-corporate is likely to lead to support of a nuclear fission program). It just really looks like this isn't an actually useful article but could (based on these people being used as references) be a mish-mash of convenient lies made by people for political and economic belief purposes, and this entry in Wikipedia is by no means scientific or unbiased - or at least everything should be verified outside of the basis of a right or left wing debate. I have seen this in other areas of Wikipedia... if we are to use the argument that we must "assume good faith" of the people who add statements with references to exclusively right wing pro military and pro corporate sources, what are we to say when these sources do not assume good faith in anyone who opposes their own views? All 3 of these people... Bernard L. Cohen, Petr Beckmann, and Russ Paielli, and the people who subscribe to their views and reprint them, have made accusations that their opponents are not people acting in good faith. So do we decide to choose who's lack of good faith is more credible, or do we eliminate these sources altogether and try harder to be objective? As it is right now, the information about the lack-of-health-danger associated with Plutonium is exclusively sourced to right wing, pro corporate, cold war hawkish people. About the 3 people mentioned: Bernard L. Cohen is or was a scientist who argued that nuclear industry wasn't that dangerous and was said to be making career-limiting statements which are said to have value due to their "strong following" (of people of a right wing ideological bent). I do think there could be some credibility in Cohen's statements but I believe it has to be completely removed from the context of him and Ralph Nader having an argument. (see http://www.fortfreedom.org/p22.htm) Petr Beckmann produced some self-publications (Access to Energy & the electronic Fort Freedom) that conflated personal freedom with corporate interests and behavior, and defended nuclear industry as safe and people opposing it as silly or irrational (as well as some anti "homosexual agenda" remarks). Russ Paielli's web site has his own essays which offer the exact same standard right-wing conservative opinions carried by personalities such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.. i.e. that Democrats are "racists", the NAZIS are identical to left wing socialists, Darwinian theory is wrong and Creationism true, etc. --Radical Mallard (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Try writing less and getting to the point sooner. If you have something to discuss regarding improving this article, then please be specific and succint. Polyamorph (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for making my comment a bit long or redundant, but I do hope you and others get the gist of what I am saying and that the article becomes better in part because of it. If ingesting small bits of plutonium (or rather, plutonium oxide) really is safe (as Cohen says) this is something everyone should talk about and it should be backed purely by raw scientific demonstration and evidence that can be reproduced, and should have no ideological basis left or right, no difference of the facts presented for or by those who are corporate, government, or citizen. Radical Mallard (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

further thought on toxcity section

I note that bernard cohen is referenced severally ref Nos92 and 93 and that I find on wiki page bernard cohen(physicist)that his findings were rejected after lenghty consideration by a World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer is this inconsistent? also I note there is no reference or information about the russian Marak nuclear plant where signicantly high rates of cancer were found consider this from the agency for toxic substance and disease registry (ATSDR)Highlights

"Plutonium is a radioactive material that is produced in nuclear reactors; only trace amounts occur naturally. It has been found to cause lung, liver, and bone cancer in plutonium workers. Plutonium has been found in at least 16 of 1,699 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)".

the lack of data on the toxcity and effects of plutonium on living matter should not be taken as a lack of serious health effects of this largely man made substance the sentences on "hot particle theory read like the excerps from feuding nuclear physics groups and are ,i think ,inappropriate also article gives no hint as to the uncertainty that exists on this subject consider;the Cerrie(Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters, London) report which has reams of info on uncertainty. If i was a cynical or suspicious person i would suspect that a certain amount of "green wash" exists here perhapes coinciding with the promotion of the new generation reactors..consider the beginning of next section Criticality potential which begins "Toxcity issues aside.."as though dismissing the subject , There are sound reasons for the low level of contaimination permitted by govt and many professional voices calling for further reductions enthusicasts for nuclear physics and its possibilities have their knowledge but it is not the only perpective we should these matters view from I believe this section lets down the high quality of this page and need a re write ..is someone doing this or shall i have a go myself? Sebastian barnes (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC) It may be that the effects of exposure to plutonium are at present masked by the effects of the other radioactive elements released into the environment on the occasions of bomb testing and accidental releases some of which are much more reactive and less long lasting .Although it maybe reassuring to quote only what is proven i dont consider the result gives an accurate picture.In the field of radioactivity uncertainty is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastian barnes (talk • contribs) 11:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

occurence

when I viewed the occurence page today I see the previous (to my editing)version has been restored,this version makes no reference to man made plutonium which is of course almost all the plutonium existing on this planet ,I think that as it now stands this article gives the impression that plutonium is a element which occurs mainly naturally ,an impression i think is misleading and suggest my edit is restored as it covers the ground more correctly please note that my edit is an addition not a deletion of information,however when I go to editting page my version still exists and I cannot edit effectively as I want to include more ref.s and clean my original edit up... somewhat confused i await development Sebastian barnes (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a nice source for the Plutonium inventory. "Separated Civil Plutonium Inventories: Current Status and Future Directions Ipublisher = Institute for Science and International Security". --Stone (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)i continue to be amazed at the uncertainty which I attempted to include in my first edit but maybe it came out as vaugeness, involved in estimating the amount of plutonium existing in the world ,when as a man made product it has been extensively documented thank you for your link I hope to introduce a more exact and concise estimate than the piecemeal approach in this paper.I see that cadmium is in your list of featured pages it is an excellent article,the section on "occurence "on plutonium is a shadow of this.

The intention of my editting was to bring this section up to wiki standard ,using other similar aticles as a guideCadmiume.g .which makes extencive references to cadmium as it is found in the environment wheather due to man made process or naturally occuring,in the case of plutonium so little is found in nature(terrestial)that I believe the weight of the article should reflect this(Sebastian barnes (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC))

Both this and the occurence sections are of perhapes a wider interest than the excellent labelling and clasifing job done on this article .It is worth considering maybe the relative importance of the sections to the wiki viewer not just the wiki user and bringing some of these sections up in standard so they are more informative and dont look so much like footnotes19:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

i have further cleaned up my edit but cant upload it can someone suggest why?

You can post it to the talk page others might incorporate it.--Stone (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

details of edit; As of 2002 one thousand 200 tonnes of plutonium has been produced in nuclear reactors , and from nuclear reprocessing sources that are well documentedhttp://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/plutonium.html#wheredoes. This plutonium occurs in local areas where it is stored under security due to its hazardous nature. During the manufacture and testing of nuclear weapons a certain amount of plutonium has been released into the wider environment,an estimate of 12.7 tonnes from the U.S weapons programme alone . In addition during plutonium's manufacture in civil nuclear reactors some plutonium has by accident and design escaped into the biosphere and has been found in sediment layers and aquatic species sellafield. I emphasis this is an addition to the info here,the section as it stands make s no effort to inform on manmade plutonium in stark contrast to other similar articles Or more fully here: Occurrence As of 2002 1200 tonnes of plutonium [1] has been produced in nuclear reactors , and from nuclear reprocessing sources that are well documentedhttp://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/plutonium.html#wheredoes. This plutonium occurs in local areas where it is stored under security due to its hazardous nature.. Because it is purposely manufactured for nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors, plutonium-239 is the most abundant isotope of plutonium by far.[33] During the manufacture and testing of nuclear weapons a certain amount of plutonium has been released into the wider environment,an estimate of 12.7 tonnes from the U.S weapons programme alone [2]. In addition during plutonium's manufacture in civil nuclear reactors some plutonium has by accident and design escaped into the biosphere and has been found in sediment layers and aquatic species sellafield Minute traces of plutonium are usually found in the human body due to the 550 atmospheric and underwater nuclear tests that have been carried out, and to a small number of major nuclear accidents. Most atmospheric and underwater nuclear testing was stopped by the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, which was signed and ratified by the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and other nations. Continued atmospheric nuclear weapons testing since 1963 by non-treaty nations included those by China (atomic bomb test above the Gobi Desert in 1964, hydrogen bomb test in 1967, and follow-on tests), and France (tests as recently as the 1980s). Trace amounts of at least two plutonium isotopes (plutonium-239 and 244) can be found in nature. Small traces of plutonium-239, a few parts per trillion, and its decay products are naturally found in some concentrated ores of uranium,[43] such as the natural nuclear fission reactor in Oklo, Gabon.[44][dead link] The ratio of plutonium-239 to uranium at the Cigar Lake Mine uranium deposit ranges from 2.4 × 10−12 to 44 × 10−12.[45] Even smaller amounts of primordial plutonium-244 occur naturally due to its relatively long half-life of about 80 million years.[46] These trace amounts of Pu-239 originate in the following fashion: On rare occasions, U-238 undergoes spontaneous fission, and in the process, the nucleus emits one or two free neutrons with some kinetic energy. When one of these neutrons strikes the nucleus of another U-238 atom, it is absorbed by the atom, which becomes U-239. With quite-short half-lives, U-239 decays to neptunium-239 (Np-239), and then Np-239 decays into Pu-239.

Since the relatively long-lived isotope plutonium-240 occurs in the decay chain of plutonium-244 it should also be present, albeit 10,000 times rarer still. Finally, exceedingly small amounts of plutonium-238, attributed to the incredibly rare double beta decay of uranium-238, have been found in natural uranium samples.[47] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastian barnes (talk • contribs) 19:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It==Please clarify== "For each milligram in oxide form inhaled by an exposed population, an excess 3 to 12 cancer deaths is expected.[95]" Exceess 3-12 deaths per...? per 100? Per 20? Per 100,000 people?

Thank you.

192.33.240.95 (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

3-12 deaths per the exposed population. Thus if the exposed population is 100 people, 3 to 12 excess cancer deaths are expected amongst those 100 people, but if the exposed population is 100,000, then each person would be exposed to less of that 1 mg of Plutonium, so the rate of plutonium related deaths is less, and 3 to 12 excess cancer deaths are expected amongst those 100,000 people. This is the type of result you get from models such as the LNT, which has its critics. (I'm not sure if the LNT is applied directly to plutonium exposure.) -- ToE 06:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent reviews of the available information on the carcinogenicity of inhaled plutonium oxide suggest that the damage-to-exposure ratio is in the range of 3 to 12 excess cancer deaths per milligram of weapons-grade plutonium inhaled in oxide form by an exposed population (Fetter and von Hippel 1990, National Research Council 1988)

--Stone (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

layperson view Refering to the sections "toxcicity"and"occurence" There should be no doubt that plutonium is an man made toxic and radioactive element ;the featured article on plutonium in this worthy encyclopdia gives the impression that Pu is mainly natrually occuring and the toxic effects are minamal. There has been few occasions when people have been exposed to Pu without being exposed to other radioactive elements..The data is incomplete (remember the half life is 10000 years)and uncertain.Uncertainty is a fact in nuclear physics and should be included in a fact based encyclopedia. Something like 2000 tonnes of Pu now exists in the world ..it is no longer a military secret ,indeed it seems to be moving into the economic sphere ,this being the case it is essential that the information in wikipedia is comprehensive and when uncertainty exists it is reported. These two sections are anecdotal badly, sourced and misinformative,I am working on rewrites(see talk) but as a layperson with sporadic internet i may not be in the best position to do this.... jumblymamba Sebastian barnes (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't need layperson's views, we need sources and references. Rmhermen (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

what i mean is that to a lay persons view these section are as i describe certainly sound sources and references are needed for archiving i have provided some in my proposed edit..my point is that some of the refs in these articles are defunct and some are doubtful quality chosen it would appear to present a somewhat biased point of view..it is after all laypersons that are mostly going to view this page.83.230.189.186 (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC) the occurence section does not include ref to normal operating losses in early years operating of nuclear power station an amount that exceeds the amount from bomb tests Sources and references http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/plutonium_wastes_from_the_us_nuclear_weapons_complex by Robert Alvarez, Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, D.C. July 7, 2010

QUOTE"Summary

Characterization of radioactive wastes at nuclear weapons sites can reduce fissile material uncertainties necessary for deep nuclear arms reductions while serving to protect the human environment. In this regard, a preliminary estimate based on waste characterization data indicates that from 1944 to 2009 about 12.7 metric tons of plutonium was discarded at U.S. nuclear weapon production facilities. This is more than three times than the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) last official estimate of waste losses (3.4 tons) made in 1996. Of the 12.7 tons, about: ? 2.7 tons in high-level radioactive wastes are stored as liquids in tanks and as granulated material in bins on the sites of former U.S. military reprocessing plants; ? 7.9 tons are in solid waste, which DOE plans to dispose at the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) a geological repository in New Mexico for transuranic wastes. About half is already emplaced; and ? 2.1 tons are in solid and liquid wastes buried in soil prior to 1970 or held up in facilities at several DOE sites. The DOE considers most of this plutonium to be permanently disposed. The dramatic increase from the DOE’s 1996 waste estimate appears to be due to: reclassification as waste of process residues originally set aside for plutonium recovery for weapons; underestimates of production losses; and improvements in waste characterization data. The amounted of discarded plutonium also increases the estimate of the total amount of plutonium produced by the U.S. Government from about 0.4 to 3 tons. It’s possible that inventory at other sites may have also been reclassified as waste at other sites, which may also explain the increase. If so this would be more compatible with the plutonium production equation used by DOE. There remain uncertainties over how much plutonium was produced and disposed because of gaps in record keeping during the first 25 years of weapons production. DOE should update its Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System to take into account recent radioactive waste characterization data. The Hanford site in Washington State is responsible for nearly a third of DOE’s plutonium wastes (4 tons) – more than any site in the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. Despite evidence of significant deep subsurface migration, DOE currently plans to leave about 0.7 MT of plutonium disposed before 1970 behind in the ground at the conclusion of its environmental cleanup at Hanford. DOE should, however, remove as much buried plutonium as possible at Hanford for geologic disposal, as it is doing at the Idaho National Laboratory. Finally, WIPP is the world’s first operating deep geological disposal site for waste that includes significant quantities of weapon-usable material. DOE requires the plutonium-239 content of 2 each waste container to be measured. WIPP therefore could be brought under IAEA monitoring prior to its closure, currently planned for 2030. This would be seen internationally as an indication of strengthened U.S. commitment to nuclear disarmament and the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. This paper does not address about 7.6 tons of plutonium contained in DOE spent reactor fuel, and 61.5 tons of plutonium declared excess for weapons purposes with the exception of 3.5 tons discarded at the Rocky Flats Plant which is included in the 61.5 tons “excess” declaration. About 41.8 metric tons of the U.S. excess plutonium is expected to be processed so it can be mixed with uranium for fabrication into mixed oxide fuel for use in commercial nuclear power plants and subsequently disposed. Disposition options for 5 tons of “non-pit” plutonium include mixing with defense high-level wastes to be vitrified or direct disposal in WIPP. More plutonium may be declared excess as a result of the 2010 Russia-U.S. strategic arms reduction agreement.end quote and the original D.O.E is called Plutonium: The First 50 Years DOE/DP-0137 U.S. Department of Energy February 1996 10.3 WASTE (NORMAL OPERATING LOSSES ) Quote"Normal operating losses (NOL) occur when quantities of plutonium, determined by measurement or estimated on the basis of measurement, are intentionally removed from inventory as waste because they are technically or economically unrecoverable. As shown in Figure 12, a total of 3.4 metric tons of plutonium was removed from the inventory as waste from normal operating losses. Some examples of waste are discharges to cribs, tanks, settling ponds, or to waste disposal facilities generically referred to as "burial sites." Major DOE burial sites are located at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Site, the Hanford Site, the Savannah River Site, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. Examples of plutonium bearing items sent to burial sites include discarded piping, spent ion exchange equipment, processing resins, and contaminated laundry and shoe covers. The sites with the largest amount of plutonium in normal operating losses are Rocky Flats (1.0 MT), the Hanford Site (1.1 MT), Los Alamos National Laboratory (approximately 0.6 MT), and the Savannah River Site (0.5 MT). These are shown in Table 9. The remaining 0.2 MT of plutonium in NOL occurred at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory- West (Idaho), Argonne National Laboratory-East (Illinois), and U.S. companies that processed plutonium for the DOE. As stated earlier, this report refers to "normal operating losses" as "waste." However, normal operating losses are actually just one estimation of the amount of plutonium managed as waste. The NMMSS data base on which this report is based differentiates between normal operating losses and waste. While all normal operating losses are considered waste, the reverse is not true. The total amount of plutonium in "waste" is 3.9 MT of which 3.4 MT is accounted for as NOL. In addition, these waste estimates within NMMSS may not agree with amount of plutonium in waste reported in other Departmental sources, such as the Integrated Database which collects information on waste volumes including plutonium in waste. A more complete explanation for these differences is found in Appendix B.!END QUOTE from wiki page Sellafield QUOTE"In the effort to build an independent British nuclear weapon in the 1940s and 1950s, the Sellafield plant was constructed; diluted radioactive waste discharged by pipeline into the Irish Sea.[44] Some claim that the Irish Sea remains one of the most heavily contaminated seas in the world because of these discharges.[45] The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) reports an estimated 200 kilograms (441 lb) of plutonium has been deposited in the marine sediments of the Irish Sea.[46] Cattle and fish in the area are contaminated with plutonium-239 and caesium-137 from these sediments and from other sources such as the radioactive rain that fell on the area after the Chernobyl disaster."END QUOTE The deadly legacy of radioactive waste greenpeace http://www.greenpeace.org/france/PageFiles/266521/dechets-nucleaires-un-herita.pdf QUOTE"France Waste inventory unknown One of the largest nuclear dumps in the world, the Centre de Stockage de La Manche (CSM) in northern France was opened in 1969 to store low-level waste. It was closed in 1994. It currently stores 520,000 m3 of radioactive materials from waste reprocessing and French nuclear reactors. A 1996 commission set up by the French government concluded that the site also contained long-living waste and high-level waste, and that the true inventory was effectively unknown. In 2006 it was found that contaminated water from the site had already been leaking into an underground aquifer, threatening the surrounding agricultural land."ENDQUOTE

my note this does include plutonium in adition i have read somewhere that as at sellafield parts of The Channel(LA Manche,sea between england and france) seabed are contaiminated with pu discharged by normal operations from the french nuclear industry which seems logical this is a high population area and exact details i have yet to find. Heres a nice round up pdf. good links too Overview of Plutonium and Its Health Effects by Casey Burns April, 2002 D R A F T II Comments are requested and can be sent to: Casey Burns George Perkins Marsh Institute Clark University 950 Main Street Worcester, MA 01610-1477 Telephone: (508) 751-4615; Fax: (508) 751-4600 caseyburns@hotmail .QUOTE"How much plutonium waste is there and where is it? Since WWII more than 1,200 metric tons of plutonium have been produced in the world. Of this amount, 260 metric tons have been produced by military applications and the rest by commercial reactors. A large amount of plutonium (not to mention other radionuclides and toxic chemicals) produced for weapons purposes has, since the end of the Cold War, been declared “surplus” by the U.S. and Russia. The sudden shutdown of weapons complex facilities resulted in over 26 metric tons of plutonium in various intermediate steps. The United States acquired or produced about 110 metric tons of plutonium between 1944 and 1994 and about 100 metric tons still remains in inventory. The DOE currently holds approximately 100 million gallons of high level waste. This is enough to fill 10,000 tanker trucks. Liquid high-level waste resulting from reprocessing is stored in 243 large underground tanks in four states. The DOE does not have accurate records of the exact composition of its military waste due to poor record keeping techniques in the past. This waste may or may not contain plutonium."END QUOTE take the last total and add.. PLUTONIUM BY NOBORU OI Mr. Oi is a senior staff member of the IAEA Department of Nuclear Energy. CHANGING DIMENSIONS OF GLOBAL COOPERATION CHALLENGES BY NOBORU OI QUOTE"The IAEA estimates that in 1997 about 10,500 tonnes of spent fuel was discharged from nuclear power reactors worldwide; this amount contains about 75 tonnes of plutonium. It is estimated that the annual production figure will remain more or less the same until 2010. The cumulative amount of plutonium in spent fuel from nuclear power reactors worldwide is predicted to increase to about 1700 tonnes by 2010"END QUOTE this is informative too Management and Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium (Free Executive Summary) http://www.nap.edu/catalog/2345.html Free Executive Summary ISBN: , 288 pages, 6 x 9, paperback (1994) This executive summary plus thousands more available at www.nap.edu. Management and Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium Committee on International Security and Arms Control, National Academy of Sciences The largest dont know remains the russian facillity at mayak I suppose this equates with the american production during similar years but is widely known to have been dirtier ALSO ANOTHER PDF Argonne National Laboratory, EVS Human Health Fact Sheet, August 2005

QUOTE"What’s in the Environment? Atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, which ceased worldwide by 1980, generated most environmental plutonium. About 10,000 kg were released to the atmosphere during these tests. Average plutonium levels in surface soil from fallout range from about 0.01 to 0.1 picocurie per gram (pCi/g). Plutonium Plutonium metal. Plutonium isotopes are primarily alpha-emitters so they pose little risk outside the body. Here the plastic bag, gloves, and outer (dead) layer of skin would each alone stop the emitted alpha particles from getting into the body. Accidents and other releases from weapons production facilities have caused greater localized contamination. The most common form in the environment is plutonium oxide. Plutonium is typically very insoluble, with the oxide being less soluble in water than ordinary sand (quartz). It adheres tightly to soil particles and tends to remain in the top few centimeters of soil as the oxide. In aquatic systems, plutonium tends to settle out and adhere strongly to sediments, again remaining in upper layers. Typically one part of plutonium will remain in solution for every 2,000 parts in sediment or soil. A small fraction of plutonium in soil can become soluble through chemical or biological processes, depending on its chemical form. While plutonium can bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms, data have not indicated that it biomagnifies in aquatic or terrestrial food chains"END QUOTE

However the bio uptake of life is reported which is also occurence."Cattle and fish in the area are contaminated with plutonium-239" fromSellafield and pdf.s Siderophore-Mediated Chemistry and Microbial Uptake of Plutonium Mary P. Neu and the hopeful Bacterial Biotransformations for the In situ Stabilization of Plutonium Mary Neu, Hakim Boukhalfa, Gary Icopini, Larry Hersman, Joe Lack, John Priester, Scott Olson, Patricia Holden Chemistry & Biology Divisions, Los Alamos National Laboratory Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, UCSB ON TOXICICITY On the uncertainty involved in this area may i draw your attention to Report of the Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE)http://www.cerrie.org/ not for its conclusions but to the main weight of the report which discusses statistical uncertaintiesSebastian barnes (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC) letus not neglect the pdf book Chernobyl Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment QUOTE"Soil contaminated by Pu-238, Pu-239, and Pu-240 at levels higher than 0.37 kBq/m2 was found in 4,000 km2, or nearly 2% of the country."END QUOTE and a good map Figure 1.13.Pu dispersal in local of reactor explosion

"QUOTE Problem of Americium-241. The powerful alpha radiation emitter Am-241, formed as a result of the natural disintegration of Pu-241, is a very important factor in the increasing levels of contamination in many areas located up to 1,000 km from the Chernobyl NPP. The territory contaminated by Pu today, where the level of alpha radiation is usually low, will again become dangerous as a result of the future disintegration of Pu-241 to Am-241 in the ensuing tens and even hundreds of years (see also Chapter III.9). An additional danger of Am-241 is its higher solubility and consequent mobility into ecosystems compared with Pu."ENDQUOTE from the sameSebastian barnes (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

My word, can you briefly summarise your points so that it is actually readable? Polyamorph (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

To bring occurence section up to par with similar sections in wiki i think that the weight of the text should represent reality,ie the distribution of plutonium on the planet,note most plutonium in secure sites almost 2000 tonnes(list of countries should be eay to compile) of the rest biggest first 1.losses from normal operations in reactors and weapon manufacture 2bomb tests3 accidents i have given refs for all these ,you may call it unreadable but please do read it and follow links and refs, its been far more confusing selecting these sources from whats out there toxcicity uncertaintity and incompletness is the reality on toxcicity eg.should we include the effects of the decay products here,e.g.have we really had enough time to asses the effects of loww dosage alpha radiation on long half life isotopes,e.g.basing our measurements on highdose(hiroshema,nagasaki)cases may skew results...anyway i think the uncertainty can be expressed in a clear concise and factual way..e.g.Much uncertainty on the toxcicity of plutonium still exists for the ...reasons stated above..i have sporadic internet so will leave this in your capable hands..here in europe this stuff is a neighbour to everyoneSebastian barnes (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's unlikely we're going to do anything with the formless glob of information above, lacking as it does in paragraphs, capitalization, periods, and done in stream-of-consciousness. If you can't write your own stuff, nobody is going to write it for you (at least at any length).

The other problem, even if the stuff above was ready for inclusion in Wikipedia, is that it's in the wrong place and you're on the wrong TALK page. It might provide info for the main subarticle Plutonium in the environment, but it's far too detailed for much to be included in the article here on the element. Problem elements all have such subarticles-- for example lead poisoning is a longer article than the one on the element lead. Do you see the point?yes The environmental contamination concerns for uranium are only breifly mentioned in uranium and are far more fully discussed in depeleted uranium. And so on. There's an entire series of articles on wikipedia about actinides in the environment. SBHarris 18:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been asked to provide refs and sources i have done so with relevent extract,relevent that is to this page,it's true i am a semi computer literate/dyslectic and do not understand the protocols used in wikipedia but i can read what i have written with comprehension ,I have no expectation that this stream of information should appear in the article .what is factual is that the balance, weightand content of these two sections (occurence and toxcicity) does not represent reality of course its impossible to include all information here.I appeal to your community to address the concerns i have expressed.

Further thoughts on toxcicity..i think whats needed here is a more balanced account of the radiotoxic effects expected from a low activity but long life isotope,clouded as the data is by the ubiquitous presence of other isotopes;the radiation from plutonium must play a mathmatically provable part in the observed human health and environmental effects .Sebastian barnes (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sebastian, you say you have no expectation that your stream of information should appear in the article. If you'd like to otherwise improve the article. Might I suggest writing a few **concise** sentences that are sourced? For example, you might have a sentence that reads something like:

• Low activity but long life isotopes have been shown be hazardous to human health ^{source link here} .

Obviously in this case the source should actually make that concise statement as well. Also, if you've written several lines in a comment or suggestion and it's a single sentence, then you're probably being too verbose and you could easily go back and make your writing more readable. As a person disinterested in the "issue" at hand, I can assure you that what you've written above is extremely difficult to read. I'm also not sure why you wrote 4-5 words per line (viewable while editing). It only leads to further confusion. Was your text copied directly from somewhere else with that formatting? (for example, what is Chapter III.9 referring to?) Chris M. (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

i really will try to propose a consice piece which is printable,the confusion above is because i have included relevent extracts after named pdf sources or links i have indicated that now because i was asked to,i find it next to impossible at the mo to get to know the way wiki works but i will keep trying.your correct i have been writting on a notepad and copy it up with some odd results ,i dont have a good enough connection to stay on line and write it all .ive provided stuff to help u lot to improve these important sections, im going to have to go now it will be sometime before i can get back on line,thanks for the responceSebastian barnes (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC) allow me to reiterate all this was uploaded as background i extracted and quoted the relevent bits as i saw to save you the time of trawling through these very verbose reports,my connection keeps breaking so i lose stuff ive been editting its frustrating can someone spare the time to pick this up?Sebastian barnes (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

PROPOSED NEW OCCURENCE SECTION THIS NEEDS CORRECTING CLEANING,LINKING VERIFING BUT I THINK THIS FORMS A REASONABLY READABLE ARTICLE:::BEBINS.. Appox. 1800 tonnes of plutonium exists in the world,CHANGING DIMENSIONS OF GLOBAL COOPERATION CHALLENGES by NOBORU OIhttp://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull401/article3.html Most of this is kept in secure and secret locations,partly as a compolent of weapons and partly in stockpiles awaiting disposal or use.these weapons and stockpiles are scattered over the world in those countries that have developed atomic caperbility(((A LIST of all nuclear countries WOULD BE GOOD HERE))) During the manufacture of nuclear weapons and the functioning of nuclear power stations normal operating losses and waste have distributed plutonium into the local environment ;in the USA these losses have been recorded 12.7 tonnes in the waste from weapons manufacture 1944 to 2009 Plutonium Wastes from the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex by Robert Alvarez,http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/plutonium_wastes_from_the_us_nuclear_weapons_complex .A weapons programme of a comparable scale in Russia based at Mayak is less well documented.Smaller weapons programmes existed in other countries but details of waste and normal operating losses are few;200kilograms (441 lb) of plutonium has been deposited in the marine sediments of the Irish Sea The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention).pdf During the testing of weapons: plutonium was vapourized into the atmosphere,10.4 tonnes from american testing http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/doc/Plutonium.pdf and an undefined amount from testing by other countries, this plutonium was distributed around the planet .The plutonium from underground testing is presummable also still there, no data is avalible although the number of tests is comparable. An undefined ammount of plutonium has been released into the environment by accident by both the civil and milatary industries: Rocky Flats,Hanford,and the Nevarda test site are examples in the u.s,a((links to wikipages please))).The meltdowns at Chernobyl and fukishima ,the windscale fire,accidents etc at Mayak in russia are among the long list of smaller but significant release incidents.as plutonium is heavy these incidents have contaminated areas local to the source Trace amounts of two plutonium isotopes (plutonium-239 and 244) can be found in nature. Small traces of plutonium-239, a few parts per trillion, and its decay products are naturally found in some concentrated ores of uranium,[44] such as the natural nuclear fission reactor in Oklo Fossil Reactors Minute traces of plutonium are usually found in the human body due to the 550 atmospheric and underwater nucleartests that have been carried out, and to a small number of major nuclear accidents. Most atmospheric and underwater nuclear testing was stopped by the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, which was signed and ratified by the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and other nations. Continued atmospheric nuclear weapons testing since 1963 by non-treaty nations included those by China (atomic bomb test above the Gobi Desert in 1964,hydrogen bomb test in 1967, and follow-on tests), and France (tests as recently as the 1980s). the uptake of plutonium by micro organisms has been proven(((Siderophore-Mediated Chemistry and Microbial Uptake of Plutonium Mary P. Neu)))and plutonium has been found in fishSellafield It is also hypothetically possible for minute quantities of plutonium to be produced by the natural bombardment of uranium ores with cosmic rays.>>>>>>>>>>END

COULD SOMEONE TIDY THIS UP AND ARCHIEVE IT IF APPROVED ...pleaseSebastian barnes (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I WILL TRY TO DO TOXCICITY BUT NOT NOW hers a soucce http://www.eoearth.org/article/Plutonium http://www.eoearth.org/article/Plutonium please note that the toxcicity of plutonium may well be on a scale with other heavy metals not very much but the radiotoxcicity cannot be assesed because rarely has longterm exposure to plutonium not been associated with other radioactive elements Rocky Flats and Mayak workers are an exception,nor can the very long term effects be known because plutonium in quantity is only 50 years old

Cleaned up edit by sebastian barnes

Occurrence

Appoximately 1800 tonnes of plutonium exists in the world. Most of this is kept in secure and secret locations, partly as a component of weapons and stockpiles awaiting disposal or use, in locations across the world in countries that have developed atomic capability. During the manufacture of nuclear weapons and the functioning of nuclear power stations normal operating losses and waste have distributed plutonium into the local environment; in the USA these losses have been recorded 12.7 tonnes in the waste from weapons manufacture 1944 to 2009. A weapons programme of a comparable scale in Russia based at Mayak is less well documented. Smaller weapons programmes existed in other countries but details of waste and normal operating losses are few; 200 kg of plutonium has been deposited in the marine sediments of the Irish Sea from normal operating losses of the sellafield plant. During the testing of weapons:10 tonnes of plutonium was vapourized into the atmosphere, . This plutonium was distributed around the planet. No data is presently available on the quantity of plutonium residue from underground testing.

An undefined quantity of plutonium has been released into the environment by accident by both the civil and military industries: Rocky Flats, Hanford Nuclear Site, and the Nevada test site are examples in the USA. The meltdowns at Chernobyl and Fukushima, the Windscale fire, and accidents at Mayak in Russia are among the long list of smaller but significant release incidents. As plutonium is heavy these incidents have contaminated areas local to the source. Trace amounts of two plutonium isotopes (plutonium-239 and 244) can be found in nature.Sebastian barnes (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

References

• I've wikified your edit for you (above), and removed the parts that were taken from the existing section. Polyamorph (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  great thanks looks ok to me i dont know what happens next.. can i leave it to you ..ive deleted the ref to cosmic rays..Sebastian barnes (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  What do other editors think? Would this or a condensed version be suitable for inclusion in the occurence section?Polyamorph (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  I'd support adding it, if everything is supported by the sources. (However, the last sentence's info is already in the article.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence is not really supported by its source - apart from the "1700 t vs. 1800 t" issue discussed below, the ref. only refers to the "cumulative amount of plutonium in spent fuel from nuclear power reactors worldwide" as being 1700 t in 2010 - naturally occurring plutonium, the mentioned "operating losses" and plutonium released by atomic bombs (the mentioned 10 t in atmosphere + unknown amount from underground testing) might substantially increase that amount. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)