From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Is it just me or is the example miscalculated? If 1 Ci = 3.7×1010 Bq then why is Ci = 2.22×106 disintegrations per minute??? shouldn't it be 1 Ci = 3.7×104 Bq? FtPeter (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's just you. First, 1 MICROcurie (not a curie) = 3.7×104 Bq.
Second, there are 60 seconds in a minute. (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why even mention the conversion to the number of disintegrations per minute? Of what relevance is that? Abiermans (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

contradiction: Pierre Curie[edit]

Changing the name of Curie to "Curie (unit)" or "Curie (Measurement)" would fix this little problem in Wikipedia's mislabel of this. Kenji000 (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Repeating Decimal[edit]

Is the conversion between Ci and Bq defined as exactly 37 billion? If not, then the inverse conversion should certainly not be exact, as indicated by the repeating decimal. Even if it is exact, I feel like it draws attention undue attention and should be removed. Unless someone can argue otherwise, I'll change it.

BailesB 03:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Megacurie, etc[edit]

Should megacurie, kilocurie, etc. have their own pages? I imagine not, unless they have specific examples of levels of each. Otherwise they could be placed on this page, or maybe create an Orders of Magnitude (Radiation) page? Probably not necessary, though. I am retyping some larger orders of magnitude to here for now. (I guess I could have made redirects. Oh well.) Omegatron 19:54, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)why would we be able to change things like weird!!! i could change everything on wikipedia then yeah!!!!!!1

Orders of Magnitude[edit]

To find Orders of Magnitude, see:

curie out of date[edit]

I currently work in nuclear power and would say that the curie is far from being replaced by any other unit. The curie is still the standard for measure of quantity of radioactive material throughout the US commercial and Naval nuclear power programs.

Well. Also here in the middle of Europe the curie is the standard by which we measure specific radioactivity of substances. -> if both in USA and EU, in both nuclear power and biology Curie would be far from replacement in daily life, so where else it is not? Reo ON | +++ 16:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In the UK, standard measurement is in bequerels, the curie is an obsolete measurement that doesn't even have a defined value. (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
UK usage does not apply to the rest of the world. In the US, we happily continue to use the curie.Izuko (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
In France, as in the rest of the world that has accepted the SI and in which it is legally binding, SI units are to be used in all legal documents. In the US, you also happily continue to use Fahrenheits, inches of mercury, and other pounds-force, rems, and rads, so I would not base my assumptions of the world-wide use of any unit upon its use in the US alone. Hébus (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
And yet, right here, you base YOUR assumption on world-wide use of the unit on French use alone. I, on the other hand, simply used the US as an example of a major nation that still uses Curies, in order to disprove the assumption that it is unused anywhere. So, the question for you is, do you want to deal with reality, or just engage in piss-poor nation bashing? Your call.Izuko (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What is considered low, normal, high?[edit]

What exactly is a low, normal and high level of radiation measured in curie? What is a dangerous level for humans? I saw in the series Heroes they measured 1800 Curie and said "let's get out of here". Is that realistic, or would they be dead already?

Blonkm 02:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's actually reasonably accurate. An 1800 Ci Co-60 source at 1 metre would lead to an exposure of a few tens of rem per minute, which means acute symptoms (nausea, vomiting) within a couple of minutes, and fatal exposures at around 10 minutes (athough the symptoms would have a latency period and may take hours to days to appear).Mjamja (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Chem or Phys?[edit]

Shouldn't this be a nuclear physics article, instead of a chemistry article?

No, because curies are used to measure radioactivity. Radioactivity is a fundamental principle of chemistry, and is only applied in nuclear physics. Nuclear physics uses the curie, but it's based on the science of chemistry.Wise Old Frog (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Curie - Marie or Pierre?[edit]

This article states that the curie was named after Marie Curie, however, Pierre Curie states that the curie was named after Pierre. (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It was named in honour of Marie, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica Alastairward (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like it was deliberately left ambiguous: How the curie came to be. Hqb (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Curie (Measurment)[edit]

I say that megacurie, kilocurie, etc. should have their own pages since kilogram and other measurments have their own pages. Since this is true, why shouldn't the curie measurments have their own pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Objective bystander logic: No, because kilograms and kilometers (and millimeters and nanometers etc.) have distinct relevancies. If an article about megacuries is simply "1 million curie" its not worth it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A kilogram is the base unit in the MKS SI system and so has it's own page. A kilometre is the standard 'everyday' measurement of long distances so it has it's own page, even though it is not a base MKS SI unit - the metre is. In the old (but still used) system from which the Curie comes from, a megacurie or kilocurie is rarely used, unless you are talking about the fallout from a large nuclear weapon. Even a Ci is a big unit and in 'normal' use - in medicine, industry, university etc - then the μCi or mCi (microcurie or millicurie) are usually used. Suzy A —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan Anonstrom (talkcontribs) 03:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Curies - Roentgens[edit]

Non-experts may be curious about the relationship between the two units (if any), just what is measured and which unit is used and why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


What’s the deal with the unit’s symbol? The article uses “Ci”, which is what one would expect for a unit derived from a proper name. But the table in Curie#Radiation Related Quantities uses “c” (a lower-case C), and I’ve seen it like that elsewhere on Wikipedia. Shouldn’t there be a note about alternate usage somewhere in there? bogdanb (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Curie is not an SI unit and therefore does not need to conform to SI conventions on capitals and plurals. (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


This article could benefit from a history section, describing when and how this unit came to be and its usage history. This would also be a good place to expand on when and why the NIST started discouraging its use. (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)