Jump to content

Talk:Plutonium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chris Mason (talk | contribs) at 12:01, 17 April 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:V0.5

Featured articlePlutonium is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 23, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 5, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
December 31, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
January 11, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Featured article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

details of edit; As of 2002 one thousand 200 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. 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. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 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. 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 ) 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. from wiki page Sellafield 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. The deadly legacy of radioactive waste greenpeace http://www.greenpeace.org/france/PageFiles/266521/dechets-nucleaires-un-herita.pdf 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.[reply]

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 .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. 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 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 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

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

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 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. and a good map Figure 1.13.Pu dispersal in local of reactor explosion[reply]

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. from the sameSebastian barnes (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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 who knows nothing about the subject at hand, I can assure you that nothing you've written above is not even remotely understandable. 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? Chris M. (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Overview of Plutonium and Its Health Effects by Casey Burns April, 2002
  2. ^ "Quality Status Report 2000 for the North East-Atlantic (Regional QSR III, Chapter 4 Chemistry, p66" (http:/ / www. ospar. org/ eng/ doc/ pdfs/ R3C4. pdf) (PDF). OSPAR Commission. . Retrieved 3 June 2007.] Plutonium Wastes from the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plutonium&oldid=487820355"