Talk:Plutonium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Physics Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]

???

This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Plutonium is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Chemistry Portal

This article is supported by the Elements WikiProject, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
This article has also been selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia.

This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Plutonium was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 2007-03-05

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. Elementbox converted 11:20, 17 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 01:43, 13 July 2005).

[edit] References needed under the applications section

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

"The toxicity of plutonium is in dispute; nuclear industry advocates point to the low chemical toxicity of plutonium and ability of a worker to hold a kilogram brick of the material without protection; if inhaled or digested, however, plutonium's effects due to radioactivity overwhelm the effects of plutonium's chemical interactions with the body, and the LD50 dose drops to the order of 5ug/kg. The insistence on both sides of the issue of plutonium's safety/deadliness casts questions on the current habitability of areas that have been exposed to nuclear warfare and on the health of the current residents."

[edit] Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Plutonium. Additional text was taken from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

[edit] Archives

/Archive 1: Mar 2003 - Nov 2005

[edit] Inhaling toxic particles

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

I note that the external links on Pu toxicity take this into account in much more detail than I just gave. It would be good to move more of this into the main article. I don't have the bandwidth at the moment. -Dmh 15:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep text and pictures together...

The text that talks about the ionic oxidation states and the pictures of the colorful test tubes are far apart. Is there something we can do to get them together? -- Pinktulip 05:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No dice on moving the picture. It squashed itself and the adjacent text into the infobox, it's been shuffled around until we gave up trying. Perhaps though someone could relocate the whole oxidation state topic into the compounds section? Femto 20:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added sentence in precautions section about Fat Man and Little Boy

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

[edit] Standardizing The Periodic Table Images

It would be nice to standardize all the periodic table images. If you look at some of the other elements (uranium for example), you'll notice the picture of the periodic table displayed on that elements page has been customized for the specific element. Aquadisco 01:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The images are part of WikiProject Elements and admittedly haven't seen much work for a long time (some were never completed). If anybody wants to work on them, this would also be the place to bring in new suggestions. Femto 11:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pu 241

I believe the dominate mode of decay is beta. Am I smoking crack? The box states alpha/SF Give Peace A Chance 04:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. According to the BNL website (http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/reCenter.jsp?z=94&n=147) 100.00% of Pu241 is beta. Only 0.003% is alpha, and 10^-14 is SF.

[edit] Metallurgy

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

Delicate issues? For posting info already in the public domain? You worry to much. Someone with sufficient means and ingenuity to obtain a critical mass of plutonium undoubtably can access more sophisticated technical info on plutonium than anything that will ever find its way into this article. Give Peace A Chance 00:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I must be dense ...

Can someone explain to me (and preferably in the article, too) what the joke is in choosing Pu for Plutonium? Is it just the transposition of letters? Did someone call it Pultonium?

RandomP 21:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Pinch your nose and say "peeyew". Then it will become apparent. Give Peace A Chance 22:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

"Pu redirects here. Pu is also a name for Car Nicobar island in its local language."

Okay, what percentage of people will actually be searching for the other Pu? I can see a redirect on the Malaysian Wiki, but a redirect on the english one is silly. Unless anyone objects, I am removing it. Give Peace A Chance 00:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plutonium manufacture

"Since nearly all neptunium is produced in this way or consists of isotopes which decay quickly, one gets nearly pure Np-237 by chemical separation of neptunium. After this chemical separation,"

I'm not sure I understand this sentence. --Gbleem 08:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plutonium phase diagram

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

Two problems with the article here: first the allotropes are quoted to have different density 'at the same volume' which makes no sense. Density is an intensive property which is a function of the pressure and temperature. Volume is an extensive propery which depends on how much plutonium you have. I think the correct statement, in line with the graph, is that the density difference between different allotropes is quoted at constant pressure. Also, the graph has an incorrect temperature axis - it should be just kelvin K rather than the incorrect 'degrees Kelvin' °K. I'm not sure how this could be corrected. --Tdent 16:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Plute"

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

Agreed and removed. Femto 11:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers :) Tpth 23:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] COST

Does anyone know the cost of Plutonium? (If you can buy it).. Just wondering for a science project. THANKS!

[edit] Plutonium in fiction

Is that section appropriate? Man with two legs 15:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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. S B H arris 19:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Pu released in explosions

Is there any credible estimate of the amount of plutonium released sine 1945 in nuclear weapon tests? 10 tons is a convenient round number, and it would seem a bit too simple. Unless anyone has a link or a reference?Rolinator 06:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

7700kg, according to The Chemistry of Actinide and Transactinide Elements (page 1805). I changed the text but didn't add the reference. If you know how to do this, please do.

I am suspicious of that figure because it seems too precise. Several countries have carried out nuclear tests with yields not precisely known, so the amount of Pu released into the atmosphere can only be a guesstimate. Man with two legs 10:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the reference says, "[a] total of approximately 7700kg of plutonium has been released in atmospheric and underground nuclear explosions." It goes on to give an approximate breakdown by groups of countries (with citations). I ran across it while reading the book, and remembered that someone had asked the question, so I thought I'd add it since it comes from an authoritative but unclassified source. I added the word "approximately."

OK, now I am convinced! Man with two legs 17:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] change "Pu" from redirect to disambiguation

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

[edit] Esperium

Esperium redirects here. What is esperium named after? --Error 23:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My bet is the thing is a hoax, now spreading across Wikipedia like Kudzu. I'm going to tag the redirect for deletion. I don't believe "esperium" has ever been a name for plutonium. S B H arris 01:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

AGF, people, AGF—I created it after putting together List of elements by symbol; there you'll see that "esperium" was a name assigned to plutonium when someone "discovered" it. Only, he didn't discover it, so the name got dumped. I doubt that it's a highly used redirect, but at the same time, what does it hurt? --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 02:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to the original question, see first [1] under "Esperium, Hesperium"—apparently the element went by both of these names, though it carried the symbol Es. Then, for more history, see [2], under "Ausonium & Hesperium"—the element was named after Hesperius ("Italy, seen from Greece"). But it turned out that he hadn't discovered the element with atomic number 94; rather, it was a combination of other things. So the name didn't stand. --Spangineer^ws (háblame)

You've got me. But let's put that info on an esperium page, and not make it a redirect page. S B H arris 02:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've created Hesperium (since that appears to be the more appropriate name) and redirected Esperium to it. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 03:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heat given off

Here is a sentence from the article, "The heat given off by alpha particle emission makes plutonium warm to the touch in reasonable quantities; larger amounts can boil water." What isotope is the article referring to (more than one isotope decays by alpha particle emission)? There is a wide variation in the decay rate between isotopes, which suggests that the heat they generate would vary widely, as well. Also, if the article is referring to plutonium-239, boiling water seems unlikely because I have seen people handling plutonium pits with their bare hands. Finally, how much of the heat would come from the Pu-240 that Pu-239 is always somewhat contaminated with? Does anyone have a reference for the claim? -- Kjkolb 11:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

All good questions. All the isotopes decay by alpha emission. Ordinary weapons-grade Pu-239 in 6 kg size pits is (by accounts) 10 or 20 C warmer than ambient, and feels like a live animal to handle (so said the Manhattan people, and they weren't even handling super weapons grade stuff which is available today). The more Pu-240 it has in it, the thermally hotter it is, to the point that reactor-grade Pu pits (if you reprocess used fuel rods to try to make weapons) are VERY hot to the touch and hot enough to cause thermal problems in bombs and so on (they'd have to be actively cooled). But apparently a bomb can still be made from them. It might have to be a bomb with a lot of muffin fans in it, like your P4 computer <grin>. But do-able S B H arris 23:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about that. Heat isn't the only problem you know. Setting off the chain reaction too early causing a "fissle" is a greater problem. Seeing that this is sufficiently troublesome to make even weapons grade plutonium require the use of the implosion principle rather than a gun-triggered device would suggest that reactor grade plutonium, containing more than twice the amount of Pu-240 at the very least, would be very difficult to make a functional weapon out of, even ignoring the thermal problems. In any case it would probably be easier to make weapons grade Pu from scratch than trying to use reactor grade material. 213.55.27.154 18:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article review

Hello. I've performed the Good Article Review, but must fail the article because it contains a large number of unreferenced facts.

The sections near the bottom - notably "Toxicity" - are not supported by references. Also, there are one or two "citation needed" tags which should be sorted, and the citations for the "Flammability" section no longer work

One or two other minor thoughts

The introduction says "The most important isotope of plutonium is 239Pu", but does not say how it is the most important.
The "External links" section needs to be improved and recuced.

If the references issue is sorted, I see no reason for it not to become a GA, and would support it for good or featured article status. --h2g2bob 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I plan to work on the ref issue as well as a general expansion. When I'm done, I will submit directly to FAC. --mav 23:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Important Vs Significant

I have always understood that something was 'important' because it had value as an intrinsic characteristic and that something was 'significant' if it had value assigned to it by an outside observer. Although the words are commonly used interchangably. In the sentance "The most important isotope of plutonium is 239Pu, with a half-life of 24,110 years." I think significant works better, as it only has value as we humans use it, not because of it's existance. Significant makes more senese to me for that reason. Starkrm 15:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Both these are words relating to human judgement, so what's the difference? You're talking about popularity. Neither one is objective, as are attributes such as "common" or "stable".S B H arris 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Both versions make sense to me, so I wouldn't have a problem with it being changed. --h2g2bob 23:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think both terms ARE objective, but I was thinking in terms of other isotopes of Pu. A scientist would hesitate to say the other isotopes are less-important, but would say they are less-significant. It's a subtle point and it doesn't really matter to me much, but I was trying to express why I changed the word, rather than just change it back. Starkrm 03:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/l/u/Talk%7EPlutonium_d0e2.html"