Understanding Dilution Principles in Nuclear Power Plant Disasters

AI Thread Summary
Dilution in ocean water reduces the concentration of radioactive particles from nuclear leaks, making them less harmful, but does not change the inherent radioactivity of the material. The diluted radioactive material can still exist in the water, but its impact diminishes with lower concentrations. The decision to site nuclear power plants near oceans involves weighing risks from natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis against cooling needs. Plants must demonstrate their ability to manage these risks to gain approval. Ultimately, while dilution decreases immediate harm, the fundamental dangers of radioactivity remain unchanged.
LT72884
Messages
335
Reaction score
49
I am a mechanical engineering student who is taking his first chemistry class this upcomming semester. I have a question regarding water and its dilution principles. I have reading up on how Nuclear power plants work. I am curious to how the ocean water disolves and dilutes the radioactive particles form the leak. How does it actually effect the radioactive material? Does that "nuteralized" or "disolved" radioactive material still float around in the water? if it does, is that not harmful? if not, please explain why.

My second question, Shouldnt a nuclear power plant be built by the ocean or totally away from it? The reason i ask, Our state, Utah, has approved a nuclear power plant here and they approved it after the japan incident.

Thank you much for you help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For your first question, the effect in the ocean is simply the lowering of concentration by dilution. The water has no effect on the radioactivity itself. Since the harm it does is very much dependent on concentration, it becomes less harmful as a result of this dilution.

Near ocean or away is basically a question of the dangers of natural phenomena such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves, etc. Presumably to approve a plant, it is necessary for the owners to demonstrate how it plans to cope with such things.
 
The effect is similar to diluting a poison with large amounts of water. The poison would still hurt you, but much less so than a non diluted poison. The poison itself, in regards to the chemistry of the molecule, is still just as deadly, there is just less of it per volume when it is diluted.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Back
Top