Template:V0.5

	Plutonium 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.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 23, 2009.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 5, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed December 31, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted January 11, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Elements FA‑class Top‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chemicals A‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals A This article has been rated as A-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been listed as a featured article under the featured article criteria. Template:WP1.0

Archives

/Archive 1: Mar 2003 – Aug 2007 /Archive 2: Oct 2007 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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]

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)[reply]

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) 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))Both this and the occurence sections are of perhapes a wider interest than the excellent laballing 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?[reply]