Talk:Plutonium

Natural occurrence

"Plutonium is the element with the highest atomic number known to occur in nature" - not true, see the WIKIPEDIA sites on (1) natural nuclear reactors in Gabon, (2) the Przybylski star...Eudialytos (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

it is true 2603:8080:D03:89D4:714E:6276:C325:D076 (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It is correct that Pu is the element with the highest atomic number that is known to occur today on Earth. All the transplutoniums created at Oklo have long since decayed. Off Earth it is indeed a different story, and it seems likely that a lot more of period 7 is accounted for every time an r-process event happens. But it's not really clear how much. Double sharp (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

This paper may be of interest. Double sharp (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This is nonsense. First, "occur in nature" and "occur on Earth" are enormously different. Second "now exist on Earth" and "have ever existed on Earth" are enormously different. How about, oh, I don't know, how about actually articulating the actual fact that it's likely that higher At No. elements have existed on Earth AND even today it's likely that an occasional cosmic ray creates some 95 (Am) or 96 (Cm) ON EARTH (just not in measurable quantities ...or I should say such collisions have to be exceedingly rare, random and almost impossible to document.) Not only that, but there are several natural radioactive processes that CAN make (and almost certainly DO make) higher AN elements (one atom here, one atom there) on Earth. Let alone stellar, neutron star, supernova processes (and how about the accretion disk of SagA*? ...It doesn't only blast out gamma rays...) And my comments have tried to ignore the various Atomic and H- bomb tests.) occur "in nature" is problematic.98.17.180.146 (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed probable that cosmic rays bring ²⁴⁷Cm to Earth. The issue is that no one has ever found it (or anything else beyond Pu). Double sharp (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Names after Pluto

Pluto is a planet. The IAU classifies it as a minor planet. The sentence:"Since uranium had been named after the planet Uranus and neptunium after the planet Neptune, element 94 was named after Pluto, which at the time was also considered a planet." is misleading. It suggest it is no longer "considered a planet", which is false. Sure it's not, by (current) definition, a major planet but the phrase "which at the time was also considered a planet" is misleading and completely unnecessary! How about just:"Since uranium had been named after the planet Uranus and neptunium after the planet Neptune, element 94 was named after the (minor) planet Pluto." Or, I think, even better:"Since uranium and neptunium were named after the planets Uranus and Neptune, element 94 was named after Pluto, discovered just a decade earlier." YMMV98.17.180.146 (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

In general, unqualified "planet" connotes "major planet" in today's astronomical parlance. And in fact, your first suggested wording is problematic for exactly this reason: in the 1940s Pluto was certainly thought to be the ninth major planet. Double sharp (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

Add Morris L. Perlman to the Discovery list. On this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_chemical_elements), he is listed in the notes as having co-discovered it with Glenn Seaborg but he's not listed in the Discovers column of that page or the Discovery list this page. Gperlman (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Seaborg and Perlman found plutonium in nature in 1942, but it was synthesized in 1941, which I suspect is why Perlman isn't generally listed as a discoverer. PianoDan (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)