|Curium has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science, Physics. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as GA-Class.|
|Curium 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.|
|Curium is part of the Actinides series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|Current status: Good article|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team|
Threads older than 730 days may be archived.
Article changed over to new popflock.com Resource: WikiProject Elements format by mav 04:07, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC). Elementbox converted 11:36, 17 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 13:45, 9 July 2005). 9 July 2005
Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Curium. Additional text was taken directly from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table were obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and popflock.com Resource: WikiProject Elements but were reformatted and converted into SI units.
It said to have "bare sphere" critical mass of 7 kg (Pu-239 is 10 kg (or 16 kg - popflock.com resource disagees with itself on this)), yet half-life is 15 million years. Should it be mentioned? Where mass and W/kg are very critical (e.g. nuclear propulsion in space), it may make it rather useful, I think. (closest contenders: Np-236: 7 kg, 154000 years; californium-249, californium-251: 5-6 kg, <1000 years).
Okay - will begin a review and jot queries below. I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go, so correct me if I inadvertently change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
same here :-), but we can always use common sense: in their decay chain, isotopes emit different types of radiation, which all pose different dangers. Also, our body accumulates isotopes very differently (say, it does need iodine, no matter the isotope, but not curium). Thus lifetime alone is not an indicator. If we ignore all that, then the issue is the accumulated dose (peak intensities are usually too small to kill). Isotopes with faster decay are easier to deactivate - just leave them alone for a while. Thus generally, slower ones are considered more dangerous. Materialscientist (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree the fact tags will need to be addressed. I will revisit this once I see some action on the above and find some more stuff to fix. Ultimately as this is a core science article (an element), I am happy to leave this GAN open longer if we can get a better result and if I see movement along the way. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
1. Well written?:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
3. Broad in coverage?:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
5. Reasonably stable?
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
The article certainly says how it is not produced (since 249Cm is likely to decay before it manages to capture a neutron), but not how it is produced. This, at least, indicates that it (like 257Fm, 255Es, 251Cf, and 254Cf) is preferentially produced in nuclear explosions; but does anyone still do this now? (With a long half-life of 8300 years, stockpiling it would be conceivable, although the neutron radiation produced by its predominant SF decay mode would be dangerous indeed.) Double sharp (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)