Talk:Tritium/Archive 1

Archive 1

BOX

EXPLAIN, CORRECT, AND/OR DELETE

Jclerman 17:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

cold fusion in spiderman 2?!

"Tritium headed to Hollywood in the 2004 movie Spider-Man 2 where the character Doctor Octopus (Alfred Molina) uses the precious tritium to create cold fusion."

I didn't wan't to edit this without being sure. But I think Dr. Octopus used inertial confinement fusion and not cold fusion in spiderman 2.

In the movie, he places the deuterium-tritium ball in the middle of a spherical construction and ignites the fusion using lasers. You then see some sort of "small sun".

Does every article need a discussion of pop culture? How about put that info and link to tritium in the Spider-Man 2 article? - Taxman ^Talk 13:20, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that spiderman 2 doesn't need to be in this article. But I found that reference to cold fusion in spiderman in there and I think that it is wrong. All I want to do is correct it. But I wanted to be sure that it is not cold fusion. Otherwise, a simple solution is to remove the reference to spiderman.

It's not cold fusion, it's not anything. It's a comic book movie, and so is completely inaccurate. They make passing references to magnetic confinement fusion and inertial confinement fusion, but that's as close as they come to science. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-7 20:42

It's ridiculus to have comic book/pop culture references for atomic elements. Maybe a seperate science/technology pop culture reference would be more appropriate? Media reference removed. --67.169.7.139 02:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Question about natural abundance of Tritium

The article contains the sentence: Before the onset of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests, the global equilibrium tritium inventory was estimated at about 80 megacuries (MCi).

What is the atmospheric (or atmospheric+oceanic) content now/today?

Lunch 23:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Check this ref [1] . If it does not have the precise answer it might have a reference to it. You could also check US EPA and UN AIEA sites. Jclerman 23:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Tritium

I heard that we (I mean humanity) have only 4 kg of tritium!

Where did you hear that? given that according to the helium-3 article 150KG of helium-3 has been obtained from decay of tritium within american nukes and the americans are still maintaining thier nukes it seems like there would be a bit more than that arround. Plugwash 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

From [2], Ontario Power, which operates heavy water reactors in Canada, produces 2.5Kg of tritium a year as a byproduct. They sell it but not for bomb purposes. So any bomb use is over and above this. Paul Studier 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Antitritium

I've always been speculating the possibility of antitritium production, possibly by a major antimatter contributer such as CERN. I've also speculated the slight possibility of antideuterium-antitritium 'fusion', so to speak.

What would be the point? SBHarris 23:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Curies?

Would it be possible for someone with a much greater grasp of physics than I to change the outdated (and very non-SI) Curies to bequerels or seiverts? Working in the nuclear industry I rarely see Curies used outside of old journals and textbooks and I was under the impression that they had been replaced internationally. 62.25.108.10 21:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Curious that you work in the nuclear industry and suggest using Seiverts[sic] for the total quantity of tritium, since the Sievert is a unity for the dosage received by biological tissues. The Becqurel is too small and I find it useful when measuring activities of the order of disintegrations per second. The Curie, instead, as roughly equivalente to the activity of a gram of radium appears more suitable. Jclerman 08:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Production from N-14

This article gives this formula:

${}_{7}^{14}{\hbox{N}}+{}^{1}{\hbox{n}}\to {}_{6}^{12}{\hbox{C}}+{}_{1}^{3}{\hbox{T}}$

The Carbon-14 article gives

¹n + ¹⁴N → ¹⁴C + ¹H

What are the relative rates of those two reactions? Nik42 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at [3]. The tritium-producing reaction only appears to happen with >4MeV neutrons. The C-14 reaction is listed at 1.819 barns for thermal neutrons and graphs are given for fast neutrons. --JWB 02:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Need Info On Tritium Supply and Mfg Rate; Possible Inconsistency in Weapon Tritium Use

In any article about a substance or element, there are common quantity-related questions: how much exists, what's the annual consumption rate, and what's the annual manufacturing rate.

I'd like to see the estimated world (or US) tritium supply, the annual consumption rate, the manufacturing rate and total manufacturing capacity. I recollect this has been openly discussed, so it's not secret or unknown. At least reasonable estimates exist.

There's a possible inconsistency in this article with the article on Nuclear Weapon Design:

This article states: Tritium is used in nuclear weapons to obtain higher yields through nuclear fusion. However, as it decays and is difficult to contain, many nuclear weapons contain lithium instead

However [Nuclear Weapon Design - Boosting] states: Having the tritium reservoir outside of the bomb allows easy replenishment and removal of waste Helium-4 without having to take the bomb core apart. (Theoretically, there are ways a solid hydride or a D/T liquid could be used instead, but the use of gas is almost universal.) Joema 16:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like large thermonuclear weapons (Teller-Ulam design) would use a large amount of lithium deuteride in the secondary, but that boosting in the center of a fission implosion sphere is done with a small amount of gas, which also allows varying the yield by varying the amount of gas injection. --JWB 17:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference to the IEER report on tritium production for the DOE. Their claim was 225 kg since 1955, of which 75 kg is still good. The current commercial demand is 400 g/year and the US military demand is 2.2 kg/year at 4 g/warhead/year. Autopilot 02:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Tritium as a Toxic Waste

Tritium is found as a toxic waste around nuclear processing facilities.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/grndwtr-contam-tritium.html

Official US Sites are:

• Indian Point
• Braidwood
• Callaway
• Dresden
• Byron
• Palo Vrede
• Quad Cities

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/sites-grndwtr-contam.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.198.162 (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Tritium in Ground Water

The USGS uses this picture http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1213/images/cab_fig18a.gif representing world atmospheric tritium levels. There is a sharp spike in the early 60s. Can these spikes be linked to specific tests? Also the USGS uses a figure of 800 Kg of tritium was produced by nuclear tests making it posible to find the recharge rate of ground water. (If it is below 2.5 picocuries then it was recharged before 1953 when hydrogen weapons testing started).

http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/tritium.html

Must have been the Tsar Bomba. Timing was right for the start of that spike, the yield was the largest ever, and consisted almost entirely of fusion; the case and tampers were made of lead which does not absorb neutrons, instead of uranium. Any neutrons absorbed by lithium-6 after the explosion had already receded from peak compression and temperature would result in tritium that would no longer be destroyed by fusion. --JWB (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Tritium Fizzle

Has anyone here read Sum of All Fears by Tom clancy? In it, a group makes a multi-stage nuclear weapon and uses tritium for maximum detonation. Unfortunately, most of it had decayed, so the bomb's explosion was less than normal. They called this effect a "Fizzle". is this a true phemenon? any help I can get will be good. StealthNinja360 (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Decay energy conservation

This is probably a dumb question... I've verified from a couple sources that the mass difference between 3H and 3He is ~18keV/c2. My question is where does the 511keV for the electron mass come from? The decay as stated violates conservation of energy by ~492keV. What's the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.40.239 (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, the *atomic* mass includes the electrons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.40.239 (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Detection of Tritium using direct contact to photographic film

A second common method of detection of Tritium used in laboratories is through direct contact of samples to photographic film which allows localization of tritiated markers.--Keelec (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Tritium keychains and US legality?

What's the deal with tritium keychains and their legality in the US? I once met a guy who had one, and he said something about having to go through a fairly complex rigamorale to acquire one. --NeuronExMachina 09:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The reason these devices cannot be imported into the U.S. is that they - unlike watches with tritium dials - are considered "frivolous" uses of technology involving nuclear radiation. As a result, he probably imported it himself, and any rigamarole he went through was probably because it set off somone's radiation detector (common at airports).dunerat 09:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, Tritium does not set of any "standard" radiation detectors due to the very low energy beta particle. I'm not quite sure how it would show up under fluoroscopy, but it would be virtually invisible in one's pocket. If your friend was hassled by immigration, he probably told someone about it.--Keelec (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

TRUGLO gun and bow sights use tritium in order to make them more visible in the dark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.180.37 (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Another application is tritiated EXIT lights that some companies are now using/deploying in the USA. However, they do require Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tracking, at least for corporate usage.--Keelec (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Regulatory Limits

Should California's Public Health Goal (400 pCi/L) be mentioned? --SCStrikwerda (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Similar to Hydrogen?

Tritium is relatively similar to hydrogen

Ummm...Tritium IS hydrogen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.220.212 (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, tritium is tritium and hydrogen is hydrogen. Materialscientist (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No, tritium, deuterium, and protium are isotopes of hydrogen (H-3, H-2, H-1).--209.167.53.3 (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps change to "tritium is relatively similar to protium"? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this in the recent versions of article, maybe some old quote. Materialscientist (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Reactions don't make sense.

Breeder reactors take months to make Tritium from ⁶Li. Aneutronic fusion notes D + ⁶Li = 2 ⁴He and there is corresponding reaction D + ⁷Li = ⁹Be + gamma OR 2 ⁴He and neutron; as well as Hydrogen Bomb article notes that most fissions in the U238 tamper were initiated by Gamma rays. Note Tritium and Deuterium are decomposed by 1.5 and 2.2MeV photons (per Neutron source) which is less than the energy listed here, 2.5MeV needed, to split ⁷Li. Thermal neutron absorption by ⁷Li gives ⁸Li decaying to ⁸Be then to 2 Alphas. Fast neutrons give ⁷Li (n,2n) ⁶Li. Again, unlike reactions documented in a breeder reactor etc. the reactions postulated at Castle Bravo is not backed up by documented facts just inferences, and Lithium reactions documented after the bomb test would seem to indicate different results e.g. bombarding ⁷Li with Deuterons in an accellerator is one neutron source method. "by neutron activation of lithium-6." huh? Should be: "A neutron (fast/thermal?)is absorbed by ⁶Li creating an activated or high energy ⁷Li, which releases this energy as a gamma and remains ⁷Li or splits the energy between an alpha and a Tritium atom." Note that 18KeV x-rays were generated by the CRT of old black and white television sets. And why is Oxygen under Deuterium (should be in fission reactor) and why is ¹⁸O missing? Shjacks45 (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere where the fission of tamper/pusher U-238 in a secondary is said to be by gamma radiation. It's fast neutron-induced. The names of elements, including isotopes like tritium and deuterium, are not capitalized (only symbols are capitalized). Where is your cite that the Castle Bravo runaway wasn't due primarily to the Li-7 reaction "postulated" after the fact, which involved fast-neutron disintigration of Li-7 to an alpha, tritium, and a neutron. SBHarris 18:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Uses?

The article claims that only 400 g are used commercially per year, while the Ontario facility alone "produces" 2.5 kg of almost pure tritium per year, which (according to the linked reference) it does not sell for use in nuclear weapons. So what are the remaining ≥2.1 kg of tritium per year used for? ITER doesn't seem to use that much tritium either... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing. It is waste that decays away. Energy4All (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Why would one put material worth 30,000,000$ per kg to waste? And the half-life is not so short that the remains would be all gone after a year, that would take decades. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think $30 000 per gram is the cost of working with it, not the supply and demand equilibrium. Additionally, it is very difficult / costly to export / import nuclear substances. However, "waste" does not mean tritium is not thrown away (just like any other nuclear "waste") - tritium is stored as a metal hydride, which can be recovered with some processing. Also the decay product, He-3, is valuable as well. Energy4All (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Should there be a page for Hydrogen-4?

It seems that it would be at least nice to have one. Sure, it's heavily unstable, but it's an isotope of Hydrogen. In fact, there should be pages for all isotopes! I'm just saying. Balgontork (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Would it really be able to have any content that isn't already mentioned in Isotopes of hydrogen? I think not. (H-4 used to have an article. It was merged into the main isotopes of hydrogen article, as there wasn't a lot to say.) Double sharp (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

For someone who has never heard the word pronounced, but only read it, there are three plausible pronunciations: TRIT-ee-um, TRITE-ee-um, and TRISH-um. I'm pretty sure the first one is correct, but would like to see it added to the article. --Trovatore 21:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always heard TRIT-ee-um around here. --192.75.48.150 ( = ity1.ontariopowergeneration.com) 14:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

American Heritage says it's either trit-ee-um or trish-ee-um. I'd heard trite-ee-um 'round these parts, but there you go. Elmo iscariot (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My professors at McGill said TRISH-ee-um. I've only ever heard TV newsreaders call it TRIT-ee-um.77Mike77 (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"Beta radiation has more inherent power than alpha" - What?

This is stated in the 'Decay'-section. I'm not sure what kind of information the author is trying to convey, but I'm pretty sure it's wrong... The concept of 'inherent energy' seems pretty unclear to me, and if we are talking about energies, alpha radiation is often of a much higher energy than beta radiation. Does anyone know what the author means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trolle3000 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This statement is unclear about what is being conveyed. If it is the ability to do damage to the body then an alpha particle is much mre damaging to tissue. The charge on an alpha particle is twice as strong as a beta particle and causes many more ionizing interactions per cms traveled than a beta particle of the same energy. Both only travel for short distances in tissue but the alpha ionizes more molecule because of its size and charge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.221.250.12 (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

For tritium, the beta emission is weak (low-energy) anyway. Double sharp (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Through the skin or not

I have detected what I think to be a contradiction: "Since tritium is a low energy beta emitter, it is not dangerous externally (its beta particles are unable to penetrate the skin), but it is a radiation hazard when inhaled, ingested via food or water, or absorbed through the skin." Perhaps this needs to be better explained. If ß particles can't penetrate the skin what else can be? Wouldn't this make the skin a filter? Dangnad (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps tritiated water spilled on the skin and getting absorbed? Double sharp (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

(P.S. They're beta particles (β), not eszett particles (ß).) Double sharp (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Content: History

Starting sentence: "Tritium was first predicted in the late 1920s by Walter Russell, using his "spiral" periodic table." First: "using his 'spiral' " - If judgemental opinion is needed then it should be explained - or do not judge at all and let a reader make his/hers own personal decision. Second: link to alternative periodic tables does not include his spiral one.

Corrections in lazyness order: 1. Neutralize the judgemental expression. 2. Do not mentions Walter Russell at all - "buy some time". 3. Do not mention the way he predicted it - delete: using his spiral periodic table. 4. Include his spiral periodic table to the article about periodic tables or mention it somehow. 109.204.187.171 (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Prediction in 1926

I removed the reference to Walter Russell's "spiral periodic table".

For the periodic table mentioned, see the two 1926 tables by Walter Russell. This diagram includes labels between hydrogen and helium but I do not believe it constitutes the prediction of an isotope (a concept which was clearly established by 1919).

The table is essentially an attempt to demonstrate some kind of structure in nature. The elements are arranged into octaves, with elements following a path from an electric charge of +3 through zero to -3 and back again. Hydrogen is the 28th entry on Russell's table, with an electric charge of 0 (which Russell equates to +4 and -4). The next entries are luminon (-3), halanon (-2), helionon (-1) and helium (0). These elements should behave, according to their formal charges, like P, S and Cl (or N, O and F) respectively.

It is clear from the second diagram, the solar-system shaped spiral, that Russell intended to show that electric charge, not atomic weight, was the defining characteristic of elements. Elements that otherwise do not fit into the scheme, such as everything between scandium and arsenic, are "isotopes."

Since deuterium and tritium have the same possible formal charges as hydrogen, Russell did not predict these isotopes. He predicted three elements between H and He, just as he predicted twenty-seven elements before hydrogen.

Russell's claim to have discovered the transuranic elements should be considered in light of his assertion that the third element after uranium is the end of the table (and the beginning).

Roches (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Half-life

Isn't the half life of tritium 12.3 years? (the page about hydrogen says so). I don't have my physics handbook hear at the moment but could some trustworth person look it up and make sure it is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.40.65 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It is 12.3 years, wich is about 4,500±8 days (that is four thousand and five hundred days). There is an excelent reference, 1, in the Decay section. You had me quite surprised there for a while, as we in Sweden use a comma "," as decimal mark. (4.500±8 days would be a bit shorter than 12 years, not to mention how strange it looks having three decimals and an uncurtenty of almost ten days). Johan G (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the abuse of the word "approximately", as in "(approximately 12.32 days)", but I couldn't figure out how to do a proper \pm symbol. I fixed the URL to the paper on the measurement of the tritium half-life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.90.84.161 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Production

The Fukashima disaster site is listed as a means of producing tritium, but then explains it as a problem of contamination without any existing technology for clean up on an industrial scale, which would suggest that it belongs under "Environmental contamination".

Also I removed the sentence "The reactions requiring high neutron energies are not attractive production methods for peaceful applications." Tritium produced for non peaceful applications would face the same logistical constraints as that produced for peaceful applications. Perhaps they mean that there are more accessible sources of low energy neutrons from peaceful applications of nuclear power? That's not how's it's worded and the only non peaceful use of nuclear power is that of nuclear bombs which no one would use to produce tritium regardless of if they wanted to use it for peaceful or non peaceful applications. Also the section on production doesn't seem to distinguish at all between reactions that produce tritium and reactions that are useful for producing tritium for industrial applications, which would be necessary for the sentence to make sense. Perhaps the section on production should be restructured with a short description of the relative economic or practical advantages of low energy neutron reactions. Whatever it said it would need citation, which the original sentence lacked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olucatei (talk • contribs) 17:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Mississippi River System

The section for Mississippi River System starts with, "The impacts of the nuclear fallout were felt in the United States throughout the Mississippi River System." What fallout? Doesn't this paragraph need clarification?

I noticed your (?) edit earlier, when you added a {{non sequitur}} tag. That isn't a non sequitur as I understand them. I may be mistaken, but you may notice that the section you're referring to is actually a subsection, and if you scroll up to the relevant section header you'll see it begins at Tritium#Use as an oceanic transient tracer. In the first paragraph of that section it states; "As noted earlier, nuclear weapons testing, primarily in the high-latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere, throughout the late 1950s and early 1960s introduced large amounts of tritium into the atmosphere, especially the stratosphere." I hope that helps clarify things, although I didn't write the article, so I'm not 100% certain. To me, it scans just fine. nagualdesign 20:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tritium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100208152633/http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/tritium.pdf to http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/tritium.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.mit.edu/8.13/www/tgm-neutron-detectors.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515162757/http://www.dep.state.pa.us/brp/Radiation_Control_Division/Tritium.htm to http://www.dep.state.pa.us/brp/Radiation_Control_Division/Tritium.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Properties

It states that all atomic nuclei consist of protons and neutrons, though atomic hydrogen doesn't have a neutron. Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.13.200 (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Not much, assuming you know that tritium and deuterium atoms are "atomic hydrogen" with neutrons. But most hydrogen atoms have no neutrons. The statement is arguably inexact, but it is also semantically arguable that nuclei consist of protons and neutrons, like saying towns consist of males and females, even if there are towns with no females. Knowing that, you might suggest a rewrite, if you think it's worth explaining. Art LaPella (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the neutrons are uncharged they don't even need to be mentioned. I edited it just now to kill two birds with the one stone. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

How does 148 PBq/yr yield only 2590 PBq?

The expected lifetime of a tritium atom is 12.32/ln(2) = 17.77 years. Hence if the natural rate of creation is 148 PBq/yr, shouldn't this be sustaining a global quantity of 148*17.77 = 2630 PBq rather than 2590 PBq? Is 2.25 PBq somehow disappearing each year other than by decay, and if so how? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

I'm sure I heard that fusion bombs have a lithium/tritium core, with the interesting consequence, from the decay of tritium, that the bombs deteriorate on storage, and require remanufacture after a few years... Can anyone confirm?? Malcolm Farmer

Yes, that's true. Well, the bit about the tritium decaying and the bomb yields dropping is true, the lithium/tritium is oversimplified.

It depends on the exact design of the bomb. There's been a lot of work on making it easy to replace the tritium without completely disassembling the weapon.

Does that help? Andrewa 16:51 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

The line " Since tritium has the same charge as ordinary hydrogen, it experiences the same electrical repulsive force. However, due to its higher mass, it is less responsive to such forces, and thus can more easily fuse with other atoms." Seems....iffy. If it IS correct it is so oversimplified that it appears wrong. a more rigorous explanation is needed.--Deglr6328 07:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At the energy where it matters all the molecules should be monatomic. By equipartition of energy, p^2/2m = P^2/2M, whence P/p = sqrt(M/m). A tritium atom will therefore bring sqrt(3) = 1.73 times as much momentum to any collision as a protium atom, and sqrt(3/2) = 1.225 times as much as a deuterium atom. The same force acting on the higher momentum will repel it less readily. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Most common for is tritriated water

At least the EPA thinks so [4]. But this article more or less ignores that and talks about tritium as if it exists alone as a gas most of the time. That link also states that "Tritium replaces one of the stable hydrogens in the water molecule". That seems much more likely unless the tritriated water is created in the presence of pure tritrium. I couldn't find any solid sources to agree or disagree. Any thoughts? - Taxman 03:02, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

It should be obvious that if you burn pure tritium in pure oxygen you can only get T2O. But in tritiated water there are many billions of hydrogen atoms per tritium atom, making HTO the (very occasional) molecule in a preponderance of H2O. A T2O molecule in tritiated water would be practically a statistical impossibility. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

If it's not 2 Neutrons

what is the extra mass? the clue? it shines. 92.40.197.16 (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

...with respect to hydrogen-1? Indeed two neutrons.

...with respect to a mass of 3 exactly? That has to do with the definition of amu, the non-integral masses of protons and neutrons, and the binding energy/mass defect.

If it's not either of these, I'm unsure what you mean. ComplexRational (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Use in fusion reactors

Tritium is an essential component of contemporary fusion reactor designs and processes. I am not the right person to make a short section about it, but it seems to me that the use case warrants a dedicated section about it (with links back to the reactors pages), and perhaps a short description of how tritium is currently sourced for use in those reactors. SplatMan DK (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

skin health risk

I am confused by this excerpt "it is not dangerous externally (its beta particles are unable to penetrate the skin), but it can be a radiation hazar when... absorbed through the skin." Jawz101 (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Beta particles (electrons) can't penetrate the skin, but if a beta source was absorbed into your body, the beta particles could damage the DNA inside your body. Does this answer your question? Graystormmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 16:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguous

"The nucleus of tritium (t, sometimes called a triton) contains one proton and two neutrons, whereas the nucleus of the common isotope hydrogen-1 (protium) contains just one proton, and that of hydrogen-2 (deuterium) contains one proton and one neutron."

This is ambiguous. I think it should read "just one proton and no neutrons" ... at least that's the way I can read it relating it to the previous phrase. WithGLEE (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)