Talk:Technetium/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"First synthesized" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect First synthesized. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"First synthesized" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect First synthesized. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Elon Musk tweet mentions "element 43" being used in SpaceX Starship.

The SpaceX Raptor rocket engine is apparently using potassium-7-pertechnatate liquid solution for corrosion protection: https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/ecr5o9/you_dont_hear_much_about_element_43/ 92.249.156.177 (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

tungsten and bismuth

I removed some edit that claimed tungsten and bismuth were unstable elements. While bismuth is technically unstable it is not special because it is the boundary of stablity. Tungsten on the other hand is quite stable. environmentalchemistry.com --metta, The Sunborn 16:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is technically not true about Tungsten http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten Naturally occurring tungsten consists of five isotopes whose half-lives are so long that they can be considered stable.

Tungsten was originally my edit. I actually received a VERY hurtful sabotaging accusation, from a Moderator no less. Not only was I just trying to be helpful, but the article on Tungsten, was quite accurate about its properties. What gives, anyway? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.233.230.223 (talk • contribs).

Bismuth isn't stable at all and no isotopes are stable. Porygon-Z (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It is technically correct that bismuth is not stable, but definitely over-the-top to assert "Bismuth isn't stable at all". It was discovered in 2003 that the isotope of bismuth then considered stable - Bi-209 - does decay, but with a half-life more than 10⁹ times the estimated age of the universe. It is very likely that similarly precise studies of other elements would reveal that isotopes described as "stable" are not absolutely stable (the lower bound on the half-life of the proton itself is only 10³² years). For all practical purposes Bi-209 can be considered stable. Longitude2 (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

question - tons or tonnes?

"only about 18,000 tons are estimated to exist" If that's an imperial or US Customary unit measurement, can it be clarified further as short or long tons, and the appropriate SI measurement added. If it's already metrics, can you use the word 'tonnes' to show that. As it is, it's ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.138.115 (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

If metric tons are meant, it should say "tonnes" if the article is written in British English and "metric tons" if it's written in American English. I agree that "tons" unexplained is ambiguous and should be avoided. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed altogether: "traces" should do. b/c the 18,000 was nor mentioned nor sourced in the article body, and reference pages do not mention it either. -DePiep (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Isotope technetium-97

In this page, it is said that technetium-98 has a longer half-life, but in the page isotopes of technetium, it stated that technetium-97 has a longer half-life. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.8.157 (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This is no longer the case. -DePiep (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)