From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Elements (Rated GA-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Version 0.5  
WikiProject icon This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.


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.

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)

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

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


Someone has inserted a sentence "The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident contaminated a vast area with 90Sr." in the Isotopes section. There is no citation for this insertion. Sr90 is not listed as a major released contaminant in the Chernobyl disaster article. Although strontium-90 is undoubtedly produced in nuclear fission, it's the volatile fission products such as iodine and cesium that are mostly released to be dispersed at a distance, while the refractory products such as strontium oxide are released as particulates that settle quickly or are retained in the corium melt. There is substantial release of strontium-90 in a thermonuclear explosion, because the much higher temperature volatilizes the more refractory materials. The article concludes that contamination by strontium-90 was limited to the immediate area surrounding Chernobyl. (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Changed to:
The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident contaminated about 30 000 km2 with greater than 10 kBq/m2 with 90Sr.

--Stone (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Strontium/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*The history section needs to mentione several people also involved in the discovery!--Stone (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Health and safety issues[edit]

In the section Biological role subsection Effect on the human body the second and third paragraphs look problematic. The second paragraph reads like an advertizement for the oesteoporisis drug strontium ranelate. Since we already have an entire article about this drug, this looks a little much. Next, it doesn't mention that this is considered a dangerous drug for use as a last resort. In the US, it's not even allowed. In the EU, the maximum allowed dosage was first reduced to 680 mg, then it was restricted for use a last resort drug. (European Medicines Agency - Protelos - trade name of strontium ranelate)

The next paragraph seems to about the use of strontium as a nutritional supplement, but without mention how controversial it is. "Studies indicate a lack of undesirable side-effects.[72][73][74][75][76][77]" If you're taking strontium, you need to be under the supervision of a physician. The Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act of 1994 doesn't mention strontium or any dosage. It just authorizes the FDA to set upper safe limits for ingredients in nutritional supplements, even when the substance has no health value. Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I was rather surprised to see all that glowing text, too. Like, with all this confetti, where is the Nobel prize? I should have tagged it. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 02:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is a rather more sane review. Double sharp (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Strontium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It burns in air to produce.. - not clear what "It" refers to given previous sentence
 Done Double sharp (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Besides the simple oxide SrO, the peroxide SrO2 and yellow superoxide Sr(O2)2 are also known - "are known" seems a bit perfunctory - would help if some brief notes on rarity/how made added for the two extra compounds
Better? Double sharp (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Any info on the superoxide? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Not that I could find. The one source I found that mentions it could only detect it through ESR spectroscopy. Since KO2 is already a potent explosive, and Sr2+ is smaller and more highly charged than K+, I think I can see why this is the case. Double sharp (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't get any feel for what Organostrontium compounds actually are or why they are notable.
Better? Double sharp (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident contaminated about 30,000 km2 with greater than 10 kBq/m2 with 90Sr. _ I'd a dd a footnote trying to relate this number to upper limit of safe exposure
This may be a problem. First of all, the units don't match: for radiation doses, you want the sievert, not the becquerel. Secondly, even if you were to try to calculate from this, it may not be a reasonable assumption to make that the 90Sr is uniformly distributed: for instance SrCl2 is soluble and will hence be mobile, but SrCO3 will not be so. Perhaps a better comparison would be that it makes up 5% of all the 90Sr we have released into the environment? Double sharp (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, just something to give it some context. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 Done Double sharp (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Updated figures in production would be good.
Updated to 2014. Double sharp (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
In the Applications section, I'd move material on the decline of CRT to sentence 2 in opening para as it's pretty precipitous and notable.
 Done Double sharp (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Its uncontrolled presence in bones can cause.. - "uncontrolled" is possibly redundant?
Removed. Double sharp (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Would be good to provide a link or exact source location for File:World Strontium Production 2014.svg
 Done Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Please format all reference dates the same way.
 Done Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Pass or Fail: - great, well done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)