Will Combining Fragile Radioactive Elements Lead to Explosions or Collapses?

AI Thread Summary
Combining fragile radioactive elements does not inherently lead to explosions or collapses; their radioactivity is a nuclear property unaffected by chemical bonding. Radioactive elements decay according to their specific half-lives, and simply bonding them does not create instability. To generate an unstable radioactive element, a significant force, such as smashing them together, is required. The term "fragile" is misleading, as elements themselves are not fragile. Understanding the distinction between chemical and nuclear properties is crucial in this context.
confusedchemist
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello, this is my first time posting...

We're working on a cartoon for science class, and I was wondering if anyone knew the answer to a bit of a dilemma I have...

If you take a single fragile, radioactive element and bond it with another fragile, radioactive element, is there a good chance it'll explode or collapse or in some other way violently explode?

That probably sounds weird but I'm in dire need of knowing. (Dire need of knowing? Ah well.)

Thanks!

confusedchemist
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not good, no. You need to smash them together to make a very unstable radioactive element. Otherwise they decay according to their half-life.

(P.S. wrong section, it'll probably get moved eventually.)
 
If you take a single fragile, radioactive element and bond it with another fragile, radioactive element, is there a good chance it'll explode or collapse or in some other way violently explode?
What does one mean by fragile? Elements are not fragile.

As Asphodel mentioned, simply combining elements (actually atoms of given elements) does not affect their radioactivity, which is a nuclear property, not a chemical property. Each radionuclide has a characteristic decay rate or half-life, and that does not change as a result of a chemical reaction.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

Similar threads

Back
Top