Talk:Uraninite

Chemicals Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Uraninite is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rocks and minerals Mid‑importance

	Earth sciences portal Uraninite is part of WikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Rocks and mineralsWikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsTemplate:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsRocks and minerals articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Would be nice to add references to this in the popular culture, as I sometimes see on other pages. For example, the ore Pitchblende features prominently in the 1940 sci-fi move 'Dr. Cyclops'.

See fictional applications of real materials, and avoid the clutter here. Vsmith 12:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massive?

Could someone clarify the term 'massive' on the element table (next to pitchblende)? I'm familiar with pitchblende, but I can't understand the use of 'massive', is it just a weird name for Uraninite that happens to sound like an adjective? WLU 13:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as per the Crystal habit page, massive refers to a habit with no discernible large scale structure. As the list of habits is already titled by a link to Crystal habit and no specific page or bookmark exists for the massive habit, it would seem extraneous to put a link in there. 150.203.123.59 (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uranite

The (uranium oxide) mineral Uranite (U₃O₈) erroneously redirects here. I don't how to change that. Uranite does not currently have a page. It would be better if it redirected to Uranium Oxide. --Morstar (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Uranite" is not a valid mineral name but is an obsolete spelling of uraninite, UO2 (nor is U3O8 a mineral; i.e., U3O8 is not known to occur in Nature).134.253.26.12 (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia page on U3O8 currently claims it occurs in nature, and calls that pitchblende.--Yannick (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not now - just removed that unsourced statement. Pitchblende in massive and perhaps impure uraninite. Vsmith (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The U3O8 page, second paragraph, still claims "U3O8 is ... the form of uranium found in nature." You may also want to check [table] of uranium ore.--Yannick (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... seems we have a disagreement among references. Vsmith (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Hurlbut & Klein do state that "uraninite is almost always partially oxidized, and thus the actual composition lies between UO2 and U3O8" so p'raps more digging needed. Vsmith (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Description of deposits?

Will someone knowledgeable please describe how uranite is distributed in the earth? Does one find a vein of it and dig that? Does someone process a mountain of material to extract some? I'm sure there are industry terms that would make it clear where to look and how big a shovel to bring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotoguzzi (talk • contribs) 09:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look here: Uranium ore deposits Geomartin (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uraninite and geology

Uraninite is also really important for geology (especially determining past oxygen levels). I don't know very much about it, but if there is someone whose chemistry is stronger than mine could add a section on uraninite and geology, that would be really helpful. Palaeocastor (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Activity

The figure of 70 Bq/g seems very low for a decent ore, as pure uranium is more like 12 kBq/g. Should it be 70 kBq/g? I don't know where I would go for the true figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.174.209 (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

70 Bq/g is definitely way too low, and according to the sources given it looks like it's just a regulatory limit that triggers shipping rules. The real radioactivity of uraninite depends on how we define it, and on the grade of the ore. There are currently other questions on this page debating the definition of uraninite and related redirects. Here is an attempt at coming up with a more reasonable number:

Pure natural uranium (U-238 + U-234) has a radioactivity of 25kBq/g [1]
Assuming that uraninite is pure UO₂, then it is composed of 88% U by weight
Therefore UO₂ has a radioactivity of 22 kBq/g
But if uraninite is referring to an ore, then it contains many other components. Uranium ore is typically 1% U₃O₈ by weight or up to 50% U3O8 in Canada. [2]
U₃O₈ is 85% U by weight and has a radioactivity of 21 kBq/g
50% grade will have a radioactivity of 10.6 kBq/g from uranium alone
Naturally occurring uranium ore will contain other radioactive decay products coincident with uranium and in secular equilibrium with it.
Assuming 14 elements in the decay chain, we get 150 kBq/g
This is quite close to the 158 kBq/g given in the table of "Estimated Radioactivity from Uraninite" given by the same source that provided the 70 Bq/g number.

Therefore I will update the number to 150 kBq/g until someone comes up with something better.--Yannick (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchblende redirect

Should this redirect here? 78.150.8.24 (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Materialscientist (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This paper attempts to draw a distinction between uraninite and pitchblende: http://www.minsocam.org/ammin/am32/am32_90.pdf

"Uraninite is usually crystallized in forms of the cubic system, whereas pitchblende never shows indications of crystal form. Thus it seems advisable to consider these as two different minerals. "

"It seems better to use the well-known name uraninite for the crystalIine mineral with higher specifi.c gravity and lower water content and pitchblende for the massive mineraloid with lower specific gravity and higher water content. Uraninite usually occurs in granite pegmatites, and pitchblende is, for the most part, found in metalliferous veins..."

--Yannick (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I would propose that pitchblende redirect to U3O8--Yannick (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchblende, per Mindat and the Manual of Mineralogy by Hurlbut & Klein 20th ed. p 307, is the massive to botryoidal form of uraninite. It is uraninite UO₂ that doesn't show good crystal form - hence massive. Mindat states "A massive, often globular, possibly impure, variety of Uraninite." The current redirect to uraninite therefore is correct. Vsmith (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Residual constituents

Has pitchblende been analyzed extensively as to its stable elemental content? If the Curies were able to find the radioactive elements 84Po polonium and 92Ra Radium in it with an electroscope the question becomes as to whether there is possibly a stable isotope of either 84Po polonium (and specifically EE84Po210) or any other possibly stable residual radioactive decay product in the residual ore.WFPM (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to note that it was the study of pitchblend by chemical decomposition that led the Curies to find and get credit for the discovery of the 2 elements 84OPo Polonium and 88Ra Radium by the use of a radiation detector (electroscope) and that nobody is noted as finding out definitely that there are no stable isotopes of these elements. It is noted in the Nubase data that the isotope EE84Po210 has the lowest mass excess value (-15953 kev) of any of the A = 210 Isotopes. And that is unusual since the lowest excess mass values of the other previous number isotopes in this atomic number area have either stable or else very long halflifed isotopes.WFPM (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully understand your question, but I think you're looking for the Radium decay series. Radium and Polonium and other intermediary products are all steps in the decay towards stable lead. Geologic deposits should contain all the chain elements in secular equilibrium, unless water has been leaching away the soluble ones like radium and/or allowing the gaseous ones like radon to escape. --Yannick (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Occurrence

Aren't major deposits mined in Niger and Kazakhstan? 86.83.56.115 (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC) Leo[reply]

Etymology

As is noted, the word 'blende' is an old miner's term for a mineral that's deceiving because of its appearance. The german verb 'blenden' means 'to dazzle' or 'to blind', but also 'to deceive'.

I would thus propose to change

from pitch, because of its black color, and blende, a term (otherwise meaning "shade" or "screen") used by German miners to denote minerals whose density suggested metal content, but whose exploitation, at the time they were named, was either unknown, impossible or not economically feasible).

to

from pitch, because of its black color, and blende, a term used by German miners to denote minerals whose density suggested metal content, but whose exploitation, at the time they were named, was either unknown or not economically feasible (from blenden meaning "to deceive").

Also trying to simplify the sentence a bit. Andy-the-chemist-87 (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]