Why can you not clense nuclear waste by using an ozone generator?

Ozone is highly reactive wouldn't it neutralize nuclear waste?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ozone reacts chemically. You need nuclear reactions. I think that it is better to "burn" nuclear waste in reactors designed to do that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no.
nuclear waste involves particles from the nucleus of atoms, hence nuclear.
you are thinking along the lines of "chemical" reactions that involve the valence electrons of atoms.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nuclear waste is a substance so it's a chemical. I theorize it's an incomplete mixture of compounds that have a hard time bonding thus releasing nasty radiation has they try to bond. Ozone bonds with just about anything.

But then again your probably right.

 

send it to space, the nuclear waste.

 

Particles such as neutrons, protons, and electrons. The building blocks of chemicals right? Ozone is the lowest on the food chain of chemicals it could pick up some extras.

Right?

 

How does nuclear waste naturally neutralize?

 

emits most of the alpha particles...nuclear breakdown occurs to reach more stable isotopes

 

you are correct in that the substance itself is a chemical.
what you are confused about is that what makes the chemical radioactive.

particles are emitted from the nucleus spontaneously, that is what makes it radioactive.

 

by emitting alpha and beta particles.
these two particles are electrons and helium nuclei, neutrons are also emitted. this process continues until the compound is turned into lead.

 

This as already been tried already hasn't it?

Oh well I just thought that the mixture of the particles where not of the right mixture like trying to mix water with oil. Thought ozone would of been a great additive to the mix.

 

chemical reactions and radiation cannot be combined like you want.

chemical reactions involve the outer electrons of an element.
two elements are joined together by sharing electrons.

radioactive particles involves incomplete atoms, there are no valence electrons for a chemical bond to take place.

technical note: some chemical bonds involve hydrogen, called a hydrogen bond.

 

Nuclear waste particles move at a different frequency don't they?

 

move at a different frequency?

i have no idea what you mean.
i believe the particles themselves are emitted at different speeds.

 

They are now moving at a different speed and higher range.

The electron/electrons was like the container of the protons and neutrons. Even though the electrons in size are smaller they contained the nucleus of the atom. They were putting pressure on the nucleus of the atom and not the other way around.

So trying to neutralize nuclear waste with ozone would be like trying to trap gas in an already closed container.

 

Hello, Klippy,

You are confusing ordinary chemical reactions with nuclear decay reactions. They are as different as night and day.

Here's a short and dirty rundown on what nuclear waste is all about.

It's a mixture of many different radioactive elements in which the nucleus of the atom could be said to be "falling apart." As it does so, it emits atomic particles.

Alpha particles which are made up of two protons and two neutrons that are joined together. That's basically the nucleus of a a helium-4 atom. And it's very much chemically inert - meaning it will not combine with anything to form a compound.

Then there are Beta particles. They are electrons that are formed in a rather curious manner. A neutron in the nucleus changes into an electron, a proton, and an antinutrino. The electron (the beta particle) leaves the atom and the new proton stays.

There's also a third type called a gamma ray but it's an electromagnetic pulse instead of a subatomic particle. They only occur AFTER an atom has kicked out an alpha and/or beta particle as the atom discharges excess energy. They are very high energy bursts and the most dangerous kind of radiation.

I hope you can see from all that that ordinary chemical reactions are not involved at all and would have no effect whatsoever even when the radioactive material is combined chemically with any other element.

(I believe I got all that correct, it's been decades since I studied nuclear physics. If I got some detail wrong, I hope someone will correct me.)

 

+1.
i tried the best i could to remember what the particles were.
the main thing to remember here is that this deals with particles emitted by the nucleus, whereas chemical reactions deal primarily with orbiting shell electrons.

 

Cool thanks for the new info.

You guys are awesome.

 

The other type of nuclear radiation that I know about is the emission of X-rays by the nuclei of some atoms, for example uranium. There are also isotopes that emit positrons, literal antimatter.

 

I know exactly what you mean, Leo.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you don't use that stuff (which most of us don't) or at least think about it now and then, it's easy for it to get away. Probably the only reason I remember it so well is that someone in the class was always getting the particles confused so I heard it repeated MANY times over and over. I believe I could have gone into much more detail (things like slow and fast neutrons and other subatomic stuff) but that seemed sufficient to cover the very basics.

And yes, you're correct about the outer shell, often refered to as the valence shell. That's where all the chemical combining and de-combining is done.