From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Version 0.5
Peer review This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Elements (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article has comments here.

Article changed over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by User:maveric149 and Bryan Derksen. Elementbox converted 14:30, 5 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 04:49, 5 July 2005).

Information Sources[edit]

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Magnesium. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Strontium Statistics and Information and USGS Periodic Table - Strontium. Other information was obtained from the sources listed on the main page but was reformatted and converted into SI units.


Near the bottom of the article it is mentioned "However, their long-term safety and efficacy have never been evaluated on humans using large-scale medical trials. Such compounds should not be administered to humans before further studies are conducted." Having recently read an article relating to double blind human tests of stontium intake I am left with the impression that the first sentence is out of date. The magazine was something about bone health. Sorry that I can't recall the name. The second sentence seems to be a value's statement, and therefore I consider it out of place on wikipedia. My two bits worth.

Y'know, these element articles look very messy now. I cleaned this one up just as an example. The way it looked before, the external link dominated the page. Wikipedia isn't a web directory (see what Wikipedia is not): we shouldn't just send people to other pages when we will want to include that same information here!

I like it -- only problem, is that it will take a couple of hours to convert all the elements to the new format.(which I am not up to at the moment) maveric149

By the way, could someone find out whether the listed .gov pages (here, e.g.) are public domain? If so, let's use them! --LMS

I also whould like to know if the LANL pages are public domain (the lack of a copyright notice, along with the general rule that federaly funded documents are in the public domain, leads me to think that this is so - which is why I choose to link to LANL) maveric149

In general, I prefer to use horizontal rules (lines) only to separate multiple separate articles which appear under the same name; see Krypton for an example. Of course, once the multiple articles become very large, it is probably better to split the article in two; but this is often not really necessary with "little" things. -BD

Sounds good to me. Just need the time to implement it. maveric149

BTW I just emailed the person at LANL responsible for the periodic table there. In the email I asked about the copyright status of the webpages. Hope to get an answer on this soon. maveric149

The reason I added the links to the LANL webpages, was to ensure that if someone looked up say, Indium, they got more than "A chemical element, in the periodic table. Indium has the symbol In and atom number 49". So the links act as a stop-gap until the articles mature past stub status. Also, it is my hope that the LANL webpages are in the public domain, so having links to it would expedite the fleshing out process. Then, "External Link(s)" could be changed to "Source Document(s)". maveric149 .

The LANL pages were created by Robert Husted while he was employed at LANL. LANL is operated by the University of California, but is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy; works created by their employees in furtherance of their duties are therefore not subject to copyright. We should be able to use this material directly without permission or attribution of any kind--we (US taxpayers) already paid for it; it belongs to us. --LDC

I was born Canada in 1946, the first official year of the Baby Boomers. I vividly remember news reports of hydrogen bombs being exploded in the 1950s by the Americans and the USSR which released Strontium 90 into the atmosphere over the Northern Hemisphere. This was readily absorbed by cows in the place of calcium and contaminated ordinary milk products. It still worries me today. Anyone have any knowledge of the long-term negative effects of Strontium 90 in human bone? -- Coasting

Ok, I have this science project and I'm supposed to do it on strontium. One of the things you're supposed to have is it's classifications. Can someone help me? I can't really figure out what it is.

/* Talk */ There is discrepancy between density at melting point property of Strontium. Which one is right?? Page "Densities of the elements (data page)" states Density, liquid phase 6.980 g/cm³ but On the main page for element Dencity at melting point stated 2.37 g/cm³ guliaka (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Specific Mass[edit]

In solid state the s.g. is 2.6  g·cm−3 and in liquid state 6.980  g·cm−3 ? Does it really contract 2.5 times ? Possibly wrong data... S k a t e b i k e r 18:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The correct value according to the "Density of Liquid Elements" table in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics is 2.375 g/cm3. The value 6.980 g/cm3 is the liquid density of tin (Sn), the adjacent element in the same table. The article now has the correct value. Piperh 20:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Atomic Radius[edit]

I have changed this to 215.1 as per LANL. Any reason it shoudl be 219? Rich Farmbrough 18:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The term has no unique definition, using empirical and calculated radii as a consistent set as referenced from atomic radii of the elements (data page). Femto 5 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)


The article states that the power released by strontium 90 is 0.46 watts per gram. However, according to [1], it is 0.93 watts per gram. Polonium 21:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Also which gives a similar value of 0.921 W/g specific power for pure strontium-90. Femto 11:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

HELP from historians[edit]

someone who knows history well please add material to the effect that Strontium 90 was ddiscovered in cow's milk in the 1960s and that the Atomic Energy Commission twisted itself into pretzeline configurations to cover up the fact that radiation from atomic testing was polluting a great many americans.

  • U.S. FDA. Total Diet Study: A. Strontium-90 and Cesium-137 Content. B. Nutrient Content. C. Pesticide Content. JAOAC 46(4). 1963.
  • Consumers Union. The milk all of us drink-- and the fallout. Consumer Reports, pp. 102-111. March 1959.
  • Consumers Union. Strontium-90 in the total diet. Consumer Reports, pp. 5-6. January 1960a.
  • Consumers Union. Fallout in our milk...a follow- up report. Consumer Reports, pp. 64-70. February 1960b.
  • Consumers Union. Strontium-90 in the total diet. Consumer Reports, pp. 289-293. June 1960c.
  • Consumers Union. A follow-up study on Strontium-90 in the total diet. Consumer Reports, pp. 547-549. October 1961.

The whole story is in these articles. --DV8 2XL 15:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I came to this page to expressly learn about the whole milk with Sr90 thing (though I'm not the original poster). If you're familiar with the situation, I think it could be a useful addition to the page. Matt Deres 19:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

William Cruickshank[edit]

Why no mention of him as co-discoverer? JackofOz 08:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing content[edit]

The article needs to look at pure metal (rather than strontium compound) sources.aiaz 18:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 20:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Yes - this article needs a complete rewrite to focus on strontium metal & its alloys. Currently it is misleading. The strontium compound information should be moved.aiaz 18:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 20:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You might be right, some of the elements have sections which are split, 'applications' and 'compounds'. It does indeed feel like there are quite some applications of the metal missing, could you add some? Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I've gone forward and split the applications section into a applications section (for applications of the metal, and a compounds-section. Can you expand the applications section, that is not my speciality? --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay ummm... Sr-90?[edit]

Is not used in cancer therapy. Actually ... if you intake enough of it it CAUSES bone cancer and lukemia:)

More missing content[edit]

Its use in determining prehistoric animals diet from their bones would be helpful (ie calcium stronium ratios) . Any experts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Strontium in drinking water[edit]

Is the strontium found in mineral waters such as Gerolsteiner stable or radioactive (toxic)? Badagnani (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Culture Reference[edit]

I'm not sure of a good way to wedge in a culture reference here. (Strontium is mentioned to be the isotope in Fallout 3 that's featured in Nuka-Cola Quantum.) (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


The section on occurence lists a number of countries where Strontium is extracted, (and the intro section says that it was first found in Scotland). Then right at the end of the section it says "The largest commercially exploited deposits are in England". This does not gel with the rest of the article, and seems unlikely. I have found references to commercial extraction in South Gloucestershire 9 but that seems to indicate that the deposits were not large and are now worked out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Right deleted the last sentence, USGS gives good list where strontium is mined. --Stone (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Nice to find that mav added that line in February 2002 diff. This a long time for an error to stay in an articel, but now its gone.--Stone (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:RECORDS? Nergaal (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deposits of celestite in Gloucestershire, the United Kingdom, represented the main source of the world supply from 1884 to 1941 and provided up to 90% of the world strontium supply from Strontium. doi:10.1002/0471238961.192018150809020.  might be a good source for that fact, although it is outdated.--Stone (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


  • The lead is to short and does not give a overview.
    • Longer.
  • Very short with only one source for all the facts.
    • Longer now.
  • Physical properties are not given.
  • Is it different to calcium or barium? Which of the two neighbors is more similar?
  • Why does the history section end in 1941?
    • Bit longer now, ending in 1960s.
  • There might be more to say and a comparison with Ca and Ba would be nice. Why is Ba easier to find although less abundant?
  • better and includes Ca in seawater.
  • Where the heck is this section?
    • Appeared.
      • C2?
  • Some of the medical part in the isotopes section should be in the applications section.
  • SNAP (isotope battery) can also merge with the applications section.
  • The applications mentioned above are not mentioned here!
Radioactive strontium isotopes
  • Why is this in the compound section?
General critics

--Stone (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrectly categorised applications[edit]

The second half of the section under the header "Uses for radioactive strontium" is incorrectly located. It talks about naturally occurring strontium replacing calcium in bone and how this can be used for matching bone remains to a location. That is a use for the natural, non radioactive strontium. It shouldn't be listed under radioactive uses. Likewise the paragraph fowling that talks about 87Sr/86Sr ratios and how they can be used in geological studies. This again is not a radioactive use. Shouldn't these paragraphs be moved up the page under the genereal "Applications" heading. Rincewind42 (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right. Yes check.svg Done. Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)