521:" Coming on the heels of "safer radioactive promethium" I'm not sure about this sentence. First, alpha decay can't really penetrate the skin, both alpha and beta decay are problematic mainly due to ingestion, with alpha decay being more dangerous because the particles do more damage than beta decay. Second, radium emits gamma radiation, not promethium, so the comparison to gamma radiation might explain why tritium replaced radium but not why it replaced promethium (also AFAIK promethium also decays via beta decay).
525:
actually still used today for specialist purposes. Ra is also an alpha emitter, and Pm and H's beta emission won't age the phosphors so much. I still haven't found for sure why tritium has completely eclipsed Pm except when the latter is really necessary, but if I had to guess I would say that it's because tritium is easily made in nuclear reactors and can be collected as a byproduct, whereas promethium can't be made as a byproduct – you've got to actively go out and make it.
188:
to promote this article without a more comprehensive (or at least better sourced) look at those areas, given that they're one of the reasons radium is as important as it is. I'm happy to do some gophering for sources (especially those on JSTOR, as I have access to that but no access to a university library) if need be and I'm also open to being convinced that this demand is unreasonable for a GA, but I don't think it will be too hard to overcome.
497:" Sort of awkwardly worded. e.g. "them" points to different things as the sentence goes on. We're trying to say a few things: 1. the radioactive compounds were very similar to barium, but 2. they were more insoluble, therefore 3. the compounds could be extracted. 4. That extracted compound was a new element, radium. I'd say split the sentence in two and see if it works better.
167:
good job laying out the physical/chemical/nuclear properties of radium and giving context to those properties--i.e. by the time we get to the discovery section we're equipped to understand how the Curies extracted radium and why it might be found in uranium. That's good and not something you see all the time in articles which mix science and science history.
574:
290:
242:
207:
42:
166:
By and large this article is pretty good. I recognize that Radium is a bigger challenge to tackle than some of the other elements you've done because of the unique and unfortunate (for our purposes) coincidence of its historical significance and lack of modern research. That said, the article does a
187:
I will say that I think the historical uses and sections on the development and production of radium could be expanded. Some of my suggestions I've left below as specific notes but there is a surfeit of sourcing (lol) on the production and applications of radium from ~1900-1960. It would be a shame
603:
is a fun read and has some color on the early popular history of Radium. Interestingly enough, the article notes that an early popularizer of radium, William Hammer, gave an estimate of ~5 thousand tons of uranium ore to 1 kg of radium. For an estimate offered in 1904, that's not too far off the 1
524:
This is actually a more interesting story than I expected it to be at first! Firstly, tritium being safer makes some sense, because the energy released by the beta decay of Pm is an order of magnitude higher than that released by H. However, tritium is a gas, so containment is an issue: so Pm is
171:
Thank you! I consciously aimed for that. Yes, it is really unfortunate – it means we have to be somewhat equivocal about the precise properties of Ra, because there haven't been modern experiments to accurately pin them down, and there are multiple conflicting values from the early 20th century.
271:
Well, natural uranium is a mix of U, U, and traces of U, so that while the main point is certainly U, the faster decay rate of the other two natural U isotopes should be significant enough that it might misrepresent the source a little to not accentuate that it means natural U. Also, thanks for
433:
Nope: the spin-orbit interaction is basically the root cause for relativistic effects in chemistry. It's just that in this article, we don't explain everything from the bottom, because there is still a lot to talk about for Ra's chemistry without going into it. For those substantially heavier
500:
Changed to "The Curies found the radioactive compounds to be very similar to the barium compounds, except that they were more insoluble. This made it possible for the Curies to separate out the radioactive compounds and discover a new element in them, radium."; better?
331:" While technically correct (I think), we've got three uses here: nuclear medicine, radioluminescent devices and quakery, so "latter usage" could refer to the last two or just the middle one (or the last, I guess, but that's not the indication I get from the text).
691:
Can you help me gopher around for more sources? Most of the things I usually can find talk more about the chemistry of the element than its history, which is fine in most cases, but for an element like Ra it is really irritating for writing the "history" section.
371:" How about "Like Barium, At standard temperature and pressure, radium crystallizes in the body-centered cubic structure"? That's maybe a bit fiddly but it avoids my having to wonder whether the crystalization is like barium or the bond distance is like barium
348:
It's still kinda unclear. This may make the text a bit more bloodless, but would it make sense to say "it's now only used for nuclear medicine" or something like that? I dunno, this is a small issue. Let's call it good for now and worry about the other stuff.
902:(searchable on google books) has several notes about the early history of radium (including the formation of various radium trusts). I can find specific pages (or screencap them if for whatever reason gbooks changes their mind about viewability)
782:
I dunno about most of this. It's a very solid reference, no doubt, but most of it is about the general story of radioactivity, which of course touches on Ra, but Ra is not the focus. I think this would fit much better in an article like
624:
There are a large number of sources on the early medical use of radium. Apparently both the british and the US set up "national radium institutes" and I think there were more applications than cancer treatement (at least to
912:
I'll add a bit more later. I think we could probably (eventually) break out a history of radium article and I don't want to recommend that you overload it, but it's so central I figure the above is a good balance.
877:
Yeah. Upon re-reading it's mostly about quackery in general. I think I'll look through the sources I've suggested above and make sure that they're focused on radium and try to add some content for those that are.
651:
I'm doing some further referencing – so far I've got rid of the citation needed tags, but there are still some places that need refs. I'll post again when it's done. In the meantime, I'll have a look through
860:
495:
They found the radioactive compounds to be very similar to the barium compounds, except that they were more insoluble: this enabled them to separate them out and discover a new element in them, radium.
539:
OK, I've tried to make it read that both Pm and T have replaced Ra. This is true, although T is more common than Pm and Pm only gets brought out when it is absolutely needed. I think it's better now.
717:
like everything might be sourced – but I will try to look for more sources and make it more watertight. In the meantime, if you find any sources, please add them to the article.
612:. I actually like the latter source better than britannica, but I think there's more than enough sourcing available on the historical uses of radium to support or supplant both.
519:
Tritium emits beta radiation which cannot penetrate the skin, rather than the penetrating gamma radiation of radium and is regarded as safer. It has a half-life of 12 years.
965:
You know, while improving and creating all those history-of-radium subarticles is a good idea, maybe we can sabotage our aim at the longest GAN record by leaving that to
80:
70:
815:
Indeed there does. (Very much hoping that the redlink is not because we really don't have an article, but because nobody thought of this plausible redirect.)
776:
47:
941:
not done by then, I'll try to get everything resolved once I'm back. (And hopefully we will not break the record for the longest GA review.)
1060:
I have to agree. This review has been going on for 3 months. If no progress is made within 48 hours I will unfortunately close the review.--
908:
is an older review article, but it has some information on how health information regarding radium propagated within the medical community.
201:
in "primordial thorium". It might be better to forego that link for a sentence and link to it when we spell out "primordial radionuclides"
1011:
738:
Sorry about not getting back to this. I'll take a look this weekend and add sources and complete the review. Thanks for being patient!
75:
379:
608:
The historical applications section runs a while without sources and where it is sourced we reference encyclopedia britannica and
126:
899:
419:
434:
elements, we know absolutely nothing about their chemistry, so I went very technical to cover all the predictions that had
156:
52:
122:
423:
231:...them is radium-205m, with a half-life of between 130 and 230 milliseconds. All ground states of isotopes from...
107:
197:
This is up to your discretion (as I'm sure there's a MOS note on where to link that I haven't read), but we link
784:
369:
At standard temperature and pressure, radium crystallizes in the body-centered cubic structure, like barium...
334:
Changed to "Today, these former applications are no longer in vogue..."; better? Yes, I meant the last two.
268:" Probably don't need to link "uranium" here as we linked to 235 and 238 (the latter twice) in the section.
99:
1044:
1018:
1002:
974:
946:
868:
851:
820:
792:
722:
697:
670:
Ok. Ping me when you want me to take another look. If you want I can gopher around for some more sources.
661:
585:
544:
530:
506:
482:
443:
391:
339:
277:
253:
218:
177:
842:
This is such a huge topic! Maybe we should just leave a summary here and put the meat at the article on
997:
All right, I'm back – gonna do some work tomorrow (and hopefully wrap this up in time for 2015!). :-)
653:
843:
375:
615:
597:
198:
1034:
1014:
998:
970:
942:
918:
896:
883:
864:
847:
816:
806:
788:
743:
733:
718:
693:
675:
657:
634:
581:
540:
526:
502:
478:
457:
439:
405:
387:
354:
335:
301:
273:
249:
214:
173:
150:
1091:
1069:
266:
It is 2.7 million times more radioactive than the same molar amount of natural uranium...
905:
422:, where for the other (substantially heavier) elements I've reviewed we've linked to
1038:
992:
960:
914:
879:
802:
739:
708:
686:
671:
646:
630:
453:
401:
350:
297:
234:
146:
836:
771:. She also wrote a book on the cultural history of radium, full text is available
565:
609:
1083:
1061:
115:
17:
314:
937:
P.S. I'm going on an internetless holiday from 13–24 Dec, so if we're (OMG!)
383:
1043:
I don't intend to be rude, but isn't it time to finish up this review? --
801:
There very much needs to be something like the history of radioactivity.
618:
772:
768:
600:
92:
430:
to be discussing a similar phenomenon. Am I missing a distinction?
1099:
1077:
1054:
1022:
1006:
978:
950:
922:
887:
872:
855:
839:(that's not full text but you can find a pdf easily by googling).
835:
there's a fairly recent article on the history of radium quackery
824:
810:
796:
747:
726:
701:
679:
665:
638:
589:
548:
534:
510:
486:
461:
447:
409:
395:
358:
343:
305:
281:
257:
222:
181:
160:
775:. I think the book is a pretty solid reference (it's reviewed
621:
might be useful for the early history of the radium industry
472:
and "radium" came to refer to all isotopes, not just 226Th.
317:
should be converted from a bare link to a citation template
767:
As I mentioned above, there's the Maria
Rentetzi article
564:
do we have a better source for the naming of radium than
134:
103:
955:
I think we're in the running for top 10, at least. :)
418:
When talking about the chemical properties we link to
374:
Changed to "Like barium, radium crystallizes in the
233:" I'd say remove the milliseconds wikilink and link
329:Today, the latter usage is no longer in vogue...
272:noting the doubly linked U: cut the second one.
8:
382:: the radium–radium bond distance is 514.8
30:
438:been made about them which I could find.
61:
33:
1013:(you might have posted this already?)
7:
596:Not required for the GA review but
656:and see what I can use from here.
24:
787:(?! I expected that to be blue).
380:standard temperature and pressure
779:so it's not some wildcat ebook.
572:
288:
240:
205:
1082:I am now closing the review.--
420:Relativistic quantum chemistry
1:
1023:14:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
1007:15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
979:05:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
702:13:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
680:18:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
666:16:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
1100:03:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
1078:00:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
1055:23:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
951:14:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
923:17:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
888:16:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
873:14:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
856:14:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
825:04:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
811:16:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
797:14:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
748:15:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
727:14:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
590:06:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
549:06:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
535:06:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
639:14:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
511:13:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
487:14:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
462:15:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
448:13:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
410:15:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
396:13:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
359:15:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
344:13:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
306:15:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
282:13:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
258:13:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
223:13:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
182:14:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
161:14:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
1118:
785:history of radioactivity
610:vintagewatchstraps.com
477:LOL! Yes, I meant Ra.
424:Spin–orbit interaction
452:Makes perfect sense.
844:radioactive quackery
474:" Do we mean 226Ra?
934:OK, I'll add these.
376:body-centered cubic
762:followup gophering
199:Primordial nuclide
89:
88:
1109:
1096:
1088:
1074:
1066:
1051:
1048:
1042:
1028:Drive-by comment
996:
969:the review. :-P
964:
737:
712:
690:
650:
580:
576:
575:
296:
292:
291:
248:
244:
243:
213:
209:
208:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
1117:
1116:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1092:
1084:
1070:
1062:
1049:
1046:
1032:
1030:
990:
958:
861:Is this the pdf
764:
731:
706:
684:
644:
573:
571:
561:
324:
289:
287:
241:
239:
206:
204:
194:
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1115:
1113:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1029:
1026:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
935:
929:
928:
910:
909:
903:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
858:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
763:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
627:
626:
622:
613:
606:
605:1/7 of a gram.
594:
593:
592:
560:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
515:
514:
513:
491:
490:
489:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
323:
320:
319:
318:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
262:
261:
260:
227:
226:
225:
193:
190:
185:
184:
165:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1114:
1101:
1097:
1095:
1089:
1087:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1073:
1067:
1065:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1053:
1052:
1040:
1036:
1027:
1025:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1008:
1004:
1000:
994:
980:
976:
972:
968:
962:
957:
956:
954:
953:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
933:
932:
931:
930:
927:
926:
925:
924:
920:
916:
907:
904:
901:
898:
895:
889:
885:
881:
876:
875:
874:
870:
866:
863:in question?
862:
859:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
840:
838:
834:
826:
822:
818:
814:
813:
812:
808:
804:
800:
799:
798:
794:
790:
786:
781:
780:
778:
774:
770:
766:
765:
761:
749:
745:
741:
735:
730:
729:
728:
724:
720:
716:
710:
705:
704:
703:
699:
695:
688:
683:
682:
681:
677:
673:
669:
668:
667:
663:
659:
655:
648:
643:
642:
641:
640:
636:
632:
623:
620:
617:
614:
611:
607:
602:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
570:
569:
567:
563:
562:
558:
550:
546:
542:
538:
537:
536:
532:
528:
523:
522:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
499:
498:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
475:
473:
469:
463:
459:
455:
451:
450:
449:
445:
441:
437:
432:
431:
429:
425:
421:
417:
411:
407:
403:
399:
398:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
378:structure at
377:
373:
372:
370:
366:
360:
356:
352:
347:
346:
345:
341:
337:
333:
332:
330:
326:
325:
321:
316:
313:
307:
303:
299:
295:
285:
284:
283:
279:
275:
270:
269:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
238:
237:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
203:
202:
200:
196:
195:
191:
189:
183:
179:
175:
170:
169:
168:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
1093:
1085:
1071:
1063:
1045:
1035:Double sharp
1031:
1015:Double sharp
1010:
999:Double sharp
989:
971:Double sharp
966:
943:Double sharp
938:
911:
865:Double sharp
848:Double sharp
817:Double sharp
789:Double sharp
734:Double sharp
719:Double sharp
714:
713:OK – now it
694:Double sharp
658:Double sharp
628:
582:Double sharp
577:
541:Double sharp
527:Double sharp
518:
503:Double sharp
494:
479:Double sharp
471:
440:Double sharp
435:
427:
388:Double sharp
386:."; better?
368:
336:Double sharp
328:
293:
274:Double sharp
265:
250:Double sharp
245:
235:ground state
230:
215:Double sharp
210:
192:style/layout
186:
174:Double sharp
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
104:visual edit
18:Talk:Radium
900:0549635211
604:ton -: -->
384:picometers
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
1047:Amaryllis
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
1050:Gardener
629:Thanks,
619:41821475
426:, these
286:Got it,
157:contribs
76:Criteria
1039:Protonk
993:Protonk
961:Protonk
915:Protonk
880:Protonk
803:Protonk
740:Protonk
709:Protonk
687:Protonk
672:Protonk
647:Protonk
631:Protonk
559:sources
454:Protonk
402:Protonk
351:Protonk
322:content
298:Protonk
147:Protonk
127:history
108:history
94:Article
1086:Dom497
1064:Dom497
625:start)
601:986549
967:after
939:still
715:looks
616:JSTOR
598:JSTOR
400:yup.
136:Watch
16:<
1094:talk
1072:talk
1037:and
1019:talk
1003:talk
975:talk
947:talk
919:talk
906:this
897:ISBN
884:talk
869:talk
852:talk
837:here
821:talk
807:talk
793:talk
777:here
773:here
769:here
744:talk
723:talk
698:talk
676:talk
662:talk
654:this
635:talk
586:talk
578:Done
566:this
545:talk
531:talk
507:talk
483:talk
458:talk
444:talk
436:ever
428:seem
406:talk
392:talk
355:talk
340:talk
315:this
302:talk
294:Done
278:talk
254:talk
246:Done
219:talk
211:Done
178:talk
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
1098:)
1076:)
1021:)
1005:)
977:)
949:)
921:)
886:)
871:)
854:)
846:.
823:)
809:)
795:)
746:)
725:)
700:)
678:)
664:)
637:)
588:)
568:?
547:)
533:)
509:)
485:)
460:)
446:)
408:)
394:)
357:)
342:)
304:)
280:)
256:)
221:)
180:)
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
1090:(
1068:(
1041::
1033:@
1017:(
1001:(
995::
991:@
973:(
963::
959:@
945:(
917:(
882:(
867:(
850:(
819:(
805:(
791:(
742:(
736::
732:@
721:(
711::
707:@
696:(
689::
685:@
674:(
660:(
649::
645:@
633:(
584:(
543:(
529:(
517:"
505:(
493:"
481:(
470:"
456:(
442:(
404:(
390:(
367:"
353:(
338:(
327:"
300:(
276:(
264:"
252:(
229:"
217:(
176:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.