This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Polonium article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Polonium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The introduction states that "[b]esides being radioactive, polonium is extremely toxic". Yet, its radioactivity is the only harmful aspect discussed in the article. If polonium is chemically toxic, then the mechanism of the toxicity should be described, if known. ZFT ( talk) 04:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I suggest that there is simply no experiment that can establish whether a highly radioactive substance has no chemical toxicity and I would bet that it is as chemically toxic as a heavy metal like Pb. However, the usual way in which heavy metals are toxic is for them to be used by the body in place of needed elements (Pb is similar to the necessary element zinc) and I don't know how an experiment would show that Po replaces, say, zinc chemically in the body if the organism dies before this uptake can occur or if the radioactivity itself interferes with uptake of the Po. I doubt that the very tiny amounts needed to kill a human (via radiation) would have chemical effects. Even very deadly organic mercury compounds I do not think have a measurable effect at microgram quantities -- I think it requires milligrams even in the case of dimethyl mercury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.99.86 ( talk) 08:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Radio-tellurium. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ComplexRational ( talk) 15:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
In February 202.142.183.148 added to article this discussion of some peculiarities of Polonium's atomic radius. Today it was partially removed by 116.71.4.85. I decided to remove the remainder of the text, as I could not find a source which confirms that Polonium is breaking radius trend in its period. Additionally I can't find the exact radiuses cited for lead and bismuth (154pm) and polonium (167pm) on elements' pages nor on Atomic radii of the elements (data page). On the other hand, this text really looks as if someone knew what they were writing, so maybe it could be verified and salvaged... – attomir ( talk | contribs) 22:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
symbol Dalton 42.111.124.42 ( talk) 16:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
"More than one hypothesis exists for how polonium does this; one suggestion is that small clusters of polonium atoms are spalled off by the alpha decay.[citation needed]"
The CN has existed since 2019. Perhaps it's time for deletion. Rockethead293 ( talk) 23:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)