The difference between a nuclear physicist and nuclear chemist is.....what?
Nuclear physicist are much, much, much, much better people
I have never seen a nuclear physicist to elaborate uranium hexafluoride and survive.
oh thank you
I don't have idea of what a nuclear chemist does.... :D
Even the word "nuclear (to do with nuclei) chemistry (to do with atoms and molecules)" seems an oxymoron to me :P
Guessing, I'd say that any field of chemistry with isotopes do matter (eg, D2O vs H2O) should be labeled as "nuclear chemistry" even if the official name is "isotopical research" or something bored. Also I guess that if radiative elements are involved, even before worrying about isotopes, then a chemistry procedures will be somehow different from the usual.
I don't think the term "nuclear chemist" is very common, I suspect you are thinking of "radiochemist".
They are basically chemists who specialize in handling (purifying, alloying etc) radioactive materials (one of my lecturers when I was an undergrad was a radiochemist, his lab was literally a cave under the physics department).
I think the term "nuclear chemist" is reasonably common, although maybe not as common as it used to be...?
As an example of a nuclear chemistry experiment, let's say you do a heavy ion fusion reaction at an accelerator, the reaction product being a superheavy element. The product recoils out of the target, you whisk it away with a gas jet, and you try to react it with some chemical and observe the result before it can undergo beta decay.
Separate names with a comma.