Talk:Radon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Radon has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Chemistry Portal

This article is supported by the Elements WikiProject, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
This article has also been selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia.

This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry.

This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Radon was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

^{Reviewed version: March 5, 2007}

Radon is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

[edit] format

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 19:37, 10 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 18:59, 10 July 2005).

[edit] Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Radon. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Periodic Table - Radon the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

[edit] Dangers

I gather that radon by itself is not of much danger for the organism, because, as an inert gas, it is not absorbed; however, its decay products are dangerous, since they can easily accumulate in the lungs. Can anyone confirm? David.Monniaux 07:40, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Lungs and bones, to be specific. --Fastfission 00:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the daughter products are the problem. There is some interesting science here: the lungs normally sweep out by cilial action any dust, to which the radon daughters attach. Rather ironically, if the radon is dust-free the daughter products attach directly to the lung surface where they cause maximum damage since they are far too small to be swept out of the lungs. A "dirty" atmosphere is hence somewhat radiologically healthier.

   N.E.Whitehead

It is important to note than the smoke is closely correlated with the lung cancer in high concentration Radon environments because the cigarettes smoke cause the absorbition of the the daughter products AND the radon itself in the lungs.--Wanblee 13:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radioactive

Since it is radioactive shouldn't the article mention its decay path (what it turns into over time and so on)? I do not know chemestry so if you know the answer please tell us, i am interested :). --ShaunMacPherson 18:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll add one. --Fastfission 00:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The two radon decay products (rdp's)that are capable of significant damage to lung cells are polonium 218 and polonium 214, which like radon, are alpha emitters. The other decay products in the chain are beta and gamma emitters including bismuth and finally becomes lead.

Radon is an inert noble gas which is constantly exhaled and has a relatively long half=life (3.8 days).

The polonium atoms are positively charged solids even if not attached to other particulate matter, so they can become lodged deep within the lungs as well as tissues throughout the respiratory track and have half lives of less than two minutes. The alpha energy from the decay can be devastating to any cell directly impacted. Some radon test devices actually record the pits created by the radioactive decay on specially treated plastic to measure radon levels.

The body has a marvelous ability to fix these little dings just as it protects us from other forms of radiation and environmental hazards. Exposure to elevated levels of radon decay products over a long period of time just increases the risk that the body is not able to repair the damage which can eventually result in a malignacy.

Most radon test results are reported in measurement units referred to as PicoCuries Per Liter (PCi/L).

One PCi/L represents 2.2 radioactive decays per minute per liter of air, so the recommended action level of 4.0 PCi/L would produce approximately 10 radioactive decays per minute per liter of air in that space. We breathe about 20,000 liters of air per day.

The science is true and the risk is real. About 15% of homes nationwide appear to have elevated levels and certain areas of the country do have higher potential than others, but radon levels much higher than 4 Pci/L have been found in many areas historically identified as having low radon potential due to geological abnormalities quite common in nature.

The short-term radon test kits used for screening purposes are inexpensive, in many cases free. Conducting the test is typically a matter of opening the package to place in the lowest lived-in area of the home for 3-7 days. Provide the required information and drop it in the mail. It really doesn't get much easier.

If a radon problem is detected, it can be reduced in almost every situation at a cost comparable to other routine home repairs...$800-$2500 according to EPA.

If short-term results report radon at 4-10 PCi/L, you may want to consider retesting using a long-term test device which provide an actual time integrated result since radon levels do fluctuate and seasonal differences may be significant with tests conducted during the colder months are typically higher than warm weather.

[edit] Spas

Is it really true that there is no evidence behind healhyness of radon spas? I think that the mechanism is somehow also known as activation of DNA repair mechanisms and maybe further immunisation.

Here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10952746&dopt=Abstract is a study comparing carbon dioxide and radon spas versus artificial carbon dioxide baths alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, "CONCLUSION: Marked short-term improvements in both groups at the end of treatment may have masked potential specific therapeutic effects of radon baths. However, after 6 months of follow-up the effects were lasting only in patients of the radon arm. This suggests that this component of the rehabilitative intervention can induce beneficial long-term effects."

regards, tygr007

[edit] Duplicate content

There seem to be two chapters, with duplicate content, regarding the spas. It is explained in both Applications and Radon therapy sections. Perhaps they should be merged somehow. --Bisqwit 10:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Health effects content gone

Seems I missed a bad edit in an earlier revert. Marked for split-off anyway, I'm not going to re-include the section, but please also consider this content on the health effects of environmental radon. Femto 13:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Health Benefits Of Radon

There does seem to be something to it, actually. I know just the title might cause some people to disbelieve this book, but look at the Politically Incorrect Guide to Science . It has footnotes. If something has footnotes, you have to believe it ;) --AimeeLee 21:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I just found out, that according to http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/citguide.html the tests for radon risks were done on miners. Doesn't that seem a bit odd to you? Read the article about coal mining in the early and mid 1900's. I don't know whether conditions have changed, but it sounds like it would impact the study. --AimeeLee 22:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radon in toothpaste

There was radium in toothpaste, not radon! --Vlad Jaroslavleff 18:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Someone mixed up the elements. How can you add a gas with a half-life of 4 d to things? Dr Zak 15:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Quickly. 81.174.226.229 14:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radon in tumor removal

Uh guys, I think I screwed up when adding that part about removing tumors. Could someone please verify it? Starhood` 21:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Nomination

While this article does have a good amount of relevant information, there are several places where references are needed to back up evidence, and as such, its not quite ready for GA status. Its not far off though, so I'm putting it on hold until these things can be fixed.

Bluelinks need to be added to the 'Applications' section.
More references need to be added for the more 'non-standard' knowledge, such as death potential in the lead paragraph, and most if not all of the Applications and History sections.
'Radon therapy' section is already mentioned in 'Applications'; this only needs to be mentioned once.

Here is my generic GA review of the article:

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is well written.

a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.

a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

Failed due to lack of progress with problems stated above. Smomo 22:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cite Web

Can you people please use the {{Cite web}} template for the references? It will look neater.74.116.113.241 21:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

The Marshalls hat a closer look at the original articles from Drn and Rutherford on the Radium emanation, and they conclude that Dorn only did the same experiments already done by Rutherford in 1900 (citing his article on the gas from thorium) without claiming the gas being a new element. The Book of Rutherford from 1906 is the first source for the phrase: radium emanation and the doing further rearch gaining the insight that the emanation of thorium and that of radium are gases are different, but both from the newly discovered group of noble gases. The credit for molar mass and spectrum should go to Ramsay and Gray like it is done in most papers.

James L. Marshall, Virginia R. Marshall (2003). "ERNEST RUTHERFORD, THE “TRUE DISCOVERER” OF RADON". Bull. Hist. Chem. 28 (2): 76 -83.
E. Rutherford (1900). "A Radio-active Substance Emitted from Thorium Compounds". Philos. Mag. 49: 1-14.
Rutherford, Ernest (1906). Radioactive transformations chapter: The Radium Emanation. Yale University Press, 70-94.
E. Dorn (1900). "Die von radioaktiven Substanzen ausgesandte Emanation". Abhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft (Halle) 23: 1-15.
W. Ramsay and R. W. Gray (1910). "La densité de l’emanation du radium". C.R. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci. 151: 126-128. --Stone 20:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the Name Radon

Guys -

One thing. I was on Marie Curie's wiki page and it said that she named two elements - polonium and radium. In this article it says that someone else named radium. Who can verify?

[edit] Radon produced in nuclear reactors?

"Radon, along with other noble gases krypton and xenon, is also produced during the operation of nuclear power plants. A small fraction of it leaks out of the fuel, through the cladding and into the cooling water, from which it is scavenged. It is then routed to a holding tank where it remains for a large number of half-lives. It is finally purged to the open air through a tall stack which is carefully monitored for radiation level."

I don't believe this is true - Radon has too high an atomic number for it to be a product of nuclear fission.

Can someone please provide a citation? If not, I think it should be removed. 59.167.76.11 12:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Uranium is 92. Radon is 86. Seems possible, we could ask at the WP:RD. Here's some links as well [1], [2] (seems to indicate radon is present in reactors), [3]. Most of the sources I've turned up cite it as a problem with mining. Some I've found discuss 'noble gases' in general, with out singling out radon. WLU 14:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think radon can be formed as a fission product because the atom undergoing fission splits roughly in half. However, it is a product of radioactive decay of uranium. Whether it forms in large enough quantities during the operation of a nuclear power plant, I have no idea. This is the kind of thing that needs a citation. --Itub 13:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked for a while and couldn't find anything beyond the above. WLU 14:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention it decays to lead! There is no reason to vent it at all. So I think the entire sentence is fiction. Ariel. (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I take it back - forgot radon emits helium when it decays, so there is that to release. Ariel. (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In the above paragraph, and in other sources which I have read, it states that Radon is the product of the radioactive decay of Uranium, the main article state is is from the radioactive decay of Radium, is it both? Clarification please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.204.68 (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Radon and radium are both part of the decay chain of uranium. Uranium decays to lead in a "chain" that takes over a dozen steps, which include radon, radium, and other elements such as polonium, protactinium, etc. --Itub (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reference for radon produced in nuclear reactors

Peterson, K. A.; Figgen, D.; Goll, E.; Stoll, H.; Dolg, M. J. Chem. Phys. 2003, 119, 11113-11123.Nergaal (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I looked up the paper (titled "Systematically convergent basis sets with relativistic pseudopotentials. II. Small-core pseudopotentials and correlation consistent basis sets for the post-d group 16–18 elements") and it doesn't mention radon at all. --Itub (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lindgren

Which of the Lindgren publications is the one used!

Lindgren (1989). Environmental pollution: Reducing the effects of deadly radon gas. Journal of Indian Museums (Museums Association of India), Volume 45:61-64.
Misquitta, Neale J., Carton, Richard W., and Chyi, Lindgren L., 1989, Excessive Radon Levels

Over Underground Coal Mines, presented at the 1989 Annual GSA meeting in St. Louis, MO. --Stone (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to work on this article

So you might notice redundant&akward information appearing in several places. I plan to trim it down in the future, but if anybody wants to help he/she is welcome to. Nergaal (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do - I just finished reading up on this element and will start to add more text this weekend. --mav (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Article coverage has been brought up to snuff by others. I don't think I can add much here. Others are just as able as I am in the organization and standardization departments. See my comments at PR. --mav (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on using accurate citation formats. You guys cook the meal, I'll set the table. :) --Cryptic C62 · Talk 11:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refs of radon compounds

I will use this references later on. Pls don't delete them. Nergaal (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] other

Nergaal (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Positive Effects of Low level Radon Exposure

A methodical ten year long case controlled study by Thompson et al. (2008)[4] of residential Radon exposure in Worcester County, Massachusetts (that included carefully placing dose monitors for one year in areas of homes where subjects spent most time) found an apparent 60% reduction in lung cancer risk amongst people exposed to low levels (0-150 Bq/m3; typically encountered in 90% of American homes) of Radon gas.[5]. This study indicates that the LNT is flawed and that there maybe a hormetic effect at low exposure levels. --Diamonddavej (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Density of the Gas

I am trying to understand what is meant by the statement that Radon is "heavy" -- does this mean that a container filled with the gas would be noticably heavier? Is Radon so dense as a gas that a solid (like a piece of wood) would actually float in it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrm2007 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Radon is very rare and radioactive, so it is not likely that you will have enough of it to do interesting demonstrations. However, sulfur hexafluoride has about 2/3 of the density of radon (or about 5 times the density of air), and is sufficiently safe and inexpensive to do nice demonstrations such as a floating "boat" made of aluminum foil. See these videos for example: [6], [7], [8] --Itub (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)