Talk:Radium

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2023

Change "Formerly, around the 1950s, it was used as a radioactive source for ..." To "From the 1910s, it was used as a radioactive source for ..."

Reference https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls Mhurrell1953 (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC) mhurrell1953

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 05:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

A +1 oxidation state?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2299-4 Should I add the +1 oxidation state to the infobox for this article? It seems reasonable, since the radium in RaF gave away one electron to a fluorine. SupercriticalXenon (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Physics beyond the standard model

Is the information in the article under Modern applications regarding radium's place in "new models" of physics due to breaking forces useful? It seems overly technical in relation to the rest of the article and the sources provided don't make much mention of radium in particular. Could be some kind of WP:SYNTH? Reconrabbit 19:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Glaring error

"In the early history of the study of radioactivity, the different natural isotopes of radium were given different names..."

No, they were not - there was no way to separate them at that time.

Someone please fix this. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you are assuming someone had a mixture of the different isotopes in a sample they knew to be the "same chemical element" and then separated them into the various isotopes. Instead, different isotopes come from different sources based on being products of different elements' decay-chains. And the isotopes might have different properties, such as different radioactivity. If I start with X and get Y that then has behavior Z and you start with A and get B that has behavior C, we might not know at first that Y and B are the same element. Thus there were substances known as "Actinium X", "Thorium X", and "Mesothorium 1" that turned out to be radium-233, 234, and 238, respectively. DMacks (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Radium/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 16:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 12:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I will review this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• I worry that the infobox image (Radium226.jpg) is misleading, because I'm not sure if we can directly see any Radium in the first place there? The viewer will think that the piece shown is Radium, but it is not. Maybe it is better to leave it without an image, or to use the "Radium-226 radiation source" image instead. The Radium226.jpg could be used later in the article. In any case, it needs a proper caption explaining what can be seen.
  • I'm not certain about the provenance of the image. Working on figuring out how to change the caption.
    • If we believe the description provided by the uploader, you are seeing Ra electroplated on Cu. So the visible part would be the radium, which makes sense as it does not show the colour of copper. This would be similar to the picture of Tc that we use, which is Tc-plated Au. Double sharp (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
      • OK. Thanks for adding the caption. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• When radium decays, it emits ionizing radiation as a by-product, which can excite fluorescent chemicals and cause radioluminescence. – But isn't that the case for any ionizing radiation? The fluorescence and radioluminescence are not specific for radium, so why mention it here (and not other effects, like health effects)?
  • These properties are particularly important to the history of radium. Relatively few other elements that emit ionizing radiation were used for this property. Its toxicity is mentioned immediately afterwards (with an added note on why it's so toxic).
    • Ok I see. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• What are "Radium watch hands"? Needs link or explanation.
  • Is "Watch hands coated with radium paint" more descriptive?
    • Yes, that adds extra clarity, I would change to that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Pure radium is a volatile silvery-white metal, although its lighter congeners calcium, strontium, and barium have a slight yellow tint. This tint rapidly vanishes on exposure to air, yielding a black layer of what is probably radium nitride (Ra3N2). – I can't follow here: How can the yellow tint in calcium, strontium, and barium result in radium nitride?
  • I've tried to clarify this by stating that it's radium's lustre (as stated in the NRC report) that becomes a black layer, rather than the "tint".

• though mesothorium 1 in particular was still used for some time, with a footnote explaining that it referred to 228Ra. – Was that only in a single paper? Is there a seconsary source for the claim that mesothorium was still used? If not, I suggest to remove this.
  • I believe I added this statement when searching literature for this particular phrase; it may have been a preference of the author and not representative of the field as a whole. I can remove it here.

• Some of radium-226's decay products received historical names including "radium", ranging from radium A to radium G, with the letter indicating approximately how far they were down the chain from their parent 226Ra: Radium emanation = 222Rn, Ra A = 218Po, Ra B = 214Pb, Ra C = 214Bi, Ra C1 = 214Po, Ra C2 = 210Tl, Ra D = 210Pb, Ra E = 210Bi, Ra F = 210Po, and Ra G = 206Pb. – Again, do we have a secondary source here (one that is recent enough to give an overview over historical terminology)? If not, that could be a sign that this is not relevant enough for this general article.

• In the early history of the study of radioactivity – I would say that this entire paragraph does not really fit in. It is a bit difficult to follow, as it requires knowledge that is only introduced in the next paragraph. If you want to keep it, move to the History section?

• and always exhibits its group oxidation state – I found this wording to be strange; can it possibly not exhibit its group oxidation state of +2?
  • This has been changed to just reflect what is stated by the NRC.

• half-reaction, 6s and 6p electrons, isomorphous, isostructural, complexation – these do need wikilinks or in-text explanations.

• Radium oxide (RaO) has not been characterized well past its existence, despite oxides being common compounds for the other alkaline earth metals – remove "past its existence", I think it only confuses and does not really add anything?

• luminous – link, or does that just mean radioluminescence?

• rose color – link to rose (color)
  • Done.

• In July 1898, while studying pitchblende, – Why mention again that they were studying pitchblende? It's still the same study, right?
  • I have to re-check the ACS source, but I believe this was a separate study. The phrasing is not clear on this.

• nuclear panels – what do you mean with that?
  • Referring to "instrument panels" as in "nuclear instrument" - the latter wording isn't replicated in the source so it's been changed in the article to reflect that.

• Section Commercial use – The section title is too broad here, it surely would also include the glowing paint discussed in the previous section.
  • I renamed it to "Quackery", as that's most of what it contains - though that could be a contentious title, I'm sure there is a better one out there.

• In the U.S., nasal radium irradiation was also administered to children to prevent middle-ear problems or enlarged tonsils from the late 1940s through the early 1970s. – Why isn't this placed under "medical uses"? Isn't it a medical use?
  • The implication is that this use falls under "quackery", though the literature doesn't seem to agree with that. It's been moved.

• Radium (usually in the form of radium chloride or radium bromide) was used in medicine to produce radon gas, which in turn was used as a cancer treatment; for example, several of these radon sources were used in Canada in the 1920s and 1930s. However, many treatments that were used in the early 1900s are not used anymore because of the harmful effects radium bromide exposure caused. – But you said that the treatments use Radon, not radium bromide?
  • Radon is produced by radium in the form of radium bromide (or radium chloride). It would not be possible to perform a radon exposure treatment without first being exposed to the radium precursor. I could state that again if it's unclear.

• This was the same method used to treat Henrietta Lacks, the host of the original HeLa cells, for cervical cancer. – Context for this information is unclear. When was it? Did it also involve Kelly?

• Structure of "Medical uses" section seems a bit random: first you discuss cancer treatment, then the uses in genetics research, then cancer treatment again.

• Howard Atwood Kelly, one of the founding physicians of Johns Hopkins Hospital, – you place a lot of emphasis here on Kelly. I worry about undue weight; maybe the paragraph could be more general/broader?

• In medical uses, you show the Radior ad, but none of that is discussed in the article?
  • It should be an example of the products related to radioactive quackery mentioned in the previous paragraphs - it's been moved and given more context, though it isn't as relevant as it could be.

• was the silver mines – "were" the silver mines?
  • This sentence gave me trouble, it's now "the silver mines [...] were the only large sources."

• The formation of an Austrian monopoly and the strong urge of other countries to have access to radium led to a worldwide search for uranium ores. The United States took over as leading producer in the early 1910s. The carnotite sands in Colorado provide some of the element, but richer ores are found in the Congo and the area of the Great Bear Lake and the Great Slave Lake of northwestern Canada. Neither of the deposits is mined for radium but the uranium content makes mining profitable.[34][69] – The first sentences are about the early 20th century, but the last two are written in present tense. How do they relate to the history?

• In 1954, the total worldwide supply of purified radium amounted to about 5 pounds (2.3 kg).[44] The chief radium-producing countries are Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, and Russia. – Same issue here. You describe the history but then there is a sentence in present tense?
  • I've tried to rearrange this to be less confusing time-wise.

• The metal is isolated by reducing radium oxide with aluminium metal in a vacuum at 1,200 °C.[30] – This sentence seems out of place. You discuss how radium is produced further up in the section; shouldn't this be there, too?
  • It's now up there. Meant to imply that the current method of isolating the metal is this method as it is done in 2018, but it is better placed in the preceding paragraph.

• Symmetry breaking forces – what is this; wikilink or explain?
  • I've linked it - the modern applications of radium are I admit somewhat beyond my expertise.

• At the time of the Manhattan Project in the 1940s, the "tolerance level" for workers was set at 0.1 micrograms of ingested radium.[87] – Sentence seems out-of-place and out-of-context where it currently is. It should be discussed together with modern levels and regulations, no?
  • It's in a more appropriate location now, though the wording was rearranged in other parts, mainly related to the NRC.

• and it must be handled in tight glove boxes with significant airstream circulation – this regulation applies where? Worldwide?

• The world's largest concentration of 226Ra is stored within the Interim Waste Containment Structure, approximately 9.6 mi (15.4 km) north of Niagara Falls, New York.[89] – What is meant by the "largest concentration"? Is this extracted radium, or radium content of atomic waste?
  • This is referring to "radioactive residue", most likely waste materials. I'm not certain how relevant this is to the article, considering that.

• In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency-defined Maximum Contaminant Level for radium is 5 pCi/L for drinking water;[90] the Occupational Safety and Health Administration does not specifically set exposure limits for radium, and instead limits ionizing radiation exposure in units of roentgen equivalent man based on the exposed area of the body. Radioactive material exposure is regulated more closely by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,[91] which sets the exposure limit to 226Ra at 0.01 μCi. Outside of the United States, exposure to radium is regulated by the International Commission on Radiological Protection and the World Health Organization.[92] – This gives a lot of details about the US, but no details about the rest of the world. I think it should instead focus on WHO regulations, maybe followed by some country-specific regulations (including, but not limited to, the US). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources spot check

• Radium oxide (RaO) has not been characterized well past its existence, despite oxides being common compounds for the other alkaline earth metals – Can't find this in the source.
• In the mid-1920s, a lawsuit was filed against the United States Radium Corporation by five dying "Radium Girls" – Can't find this in the source.
  • The source for this is used several paragraphs on. I've copied it over. Warrants review of the rest...
• What makes source 55 a reliable source? Looks like a personal website?
  • Assuming this refers to dissident-media.org, I am looking into it.

Conclusion: The article still needs work to reach GA level. The chemistry content is good and well-written, but the problems are further down in the article. The main weakness seems to be the applications and historical uses sections. The sources spot-check unfortunately did not pass. I would need to ask you to check the other sources yourself, and when you believe that everything is ok, I would have to do another spot check. If you think you can solve everything within two weeks, I am happy to keep the review on hold; if you need longer, I would be happy to pick up the review again in a new GA nomination if you like. Let me know what you think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I realize in this review that I made a lot of assumptions about the previous authors of this article, and that I also fell into a lot of mistakes trying to maintain the same structure, ending up with weird chronology and missing sourcing in the middle of paragraphs. Organization is tough and I make assumptions about what is obvious and what isn't. In the coming week I will do my utmost to address the concerns raised, then start on the process of checking all the sources I did not add myself. I'll be in a better spot to say where I can bring this article by 18 October. Reconrabbit 02:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)