Talk:Radon

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).

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.

---

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?

An image of Radon for this article perhaps?

A few months ago, I stumbled across a website which provided images for some of the heavy actinide elements' images on Wikipedia. What I found on the website is an image of the element Radon. It seems like the gas was encased in a glass tube and there's only 1 reference at the bottom of the page, stating that the image was taken from a book. [1]http://gotexassoccer.com/elements/086Rn/Rn.htm

So I emailed the creator of the website - Mark Kness - about this image. He replied: "Looking at my cell[ul]ose-book version, I note the comment: 'Radioactive radon was placed on a background of zinc sulphide, thus causing it to slow with a yellow-green light'. The radon does seem to be enclosed in a glass tube. The green glow is from the ZnS, which is excited by the radiation from radon (and perhaps radon daughters), it is not directly from radon itself. I did not have anything to do with preparing this sample, so I can't really provide more details than that." And I was wondering if this image could be added to the infobox in the Radon article? SupercriticalXenon (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It's almost certainly not coming with the right license to use it here, and if it doesn't even show radon itself then I don't see why we would want to add it. Sometimes there is just no good image of things. --mfb (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

First paragraph is repetitively redundant.

Oof. Half-life of 3.8 days is said three times. Part of the decay chain of U-238 and Th-232 is said twice. Being very rare is said twice. Will be around for billions more years is said twice. Decay chain ending in lead is said three times. This carries into the second paragraph a bit where being a decay product of uranium is mentioned again. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Trimming

Aside from the additions over the years by people promoting different remediation practices, hormesis, etc., the sections on occurrence, health risks, and mitigation all seem unnecessarily large. They all have their own articles anyway, where much of this information is duplicated, so I will be trimming these sections in particular with prejudice. Reconrabbit 15:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Image?

The radon article still doesn't have an image of radon. However, i may have found a picture of radon. HAt 12:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

What in that picture is radon? And what is the rest? We can only take pictures with suitable licenses anyway. --mfb (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

TBH I don't even believe that's radon, just look at it! Thats obviously a solid! HAt 13:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I would assume, based on chemistry and the image, that the bubbles are the radon, as decay products being liberated from the solid. But assuming or analyzing someone else's novel image aren't really viable approaches for encyclopedia content. DMacks (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Also for your information the promethium(III) chloride page has an image that has the same source as the 'radon' picture. HAt 13:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

A "non-free" image can be used even contrary to its license in extremely limited cases. That PmCl₃ image is documented as meeting Non-free content criteria. DMacks (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Spectrum

What's the reason that the spectra of Radon and Radium are nearly identical (just adding a few lines to get from Radium to Radon)? Compare Radon spectrum vs. Radium spectrum. Shouldn't the lines be completely different? Renerpho (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I've asked again on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Radon and Radium spectral lines, with some additional comments. I suggest we discuss it there. Renerpho (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Both works are original research according to their descriptions. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

What the Thayer reference says about Radon.

The source

was mentioned in a recent edit summary between @DMacks and @The Young Prussian. The source says:

• Template:Tq

In my opinion the notable sentence is the first one, not the last one. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I was only focused on the spelling of the chemical. This area of chemistry isn't my specialty. DMacks (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

In any case: per the Red Book (p. 338) the anion name for Rn is radonate. (For Ra it is radate.) Double sharp (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Notes on GA

I was trying for a long while to bring this article to GA status but gave up after a lot of searching around for subpar sources and getting stuck in certain places. @Keresluna, I would pay special attention to the following section headings where I felt there needed to be more citations or more information in general:

• Industrial production
• Inhalation and smoking
• Absorption and ingestion from water

The latter two I wrote "needed review"; I leave it to you. Because of how heavily involved I was in writing the article I don't think I could give an impartial review. -- Reconrabbit 15:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I withdrew the nomination. I do not think I will have time for this during the summer. Sorry for this. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 17:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, understood. Maybe I will nominate it myself once I am done with the rabbits. -- Reconrabbit 17:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)