No. Short-lived isotopes will disappear by then; some long-lived isotopes may survive, but they will have a low level of radiation.
Mecause melting does not destroy the radioactivity. Whatever burns would cause radioactive ash/smoke that would be carried away on the wind. the rest would just turn a patch of the lava radioactive.
YEs The radioactive materials would probaly kill the sea creatures
Millions im not even sure if he would let you !!!!!
In my understanding, this is because a fusion reactor reacts deuterium to produce helium, which is not radioactive, whereas a fission uses uranium or plutonium, for example, which may react to form various radioactive isotopes. A fusion reactor may contain small quantities of tritium, in which case a radioactive isotope of hydrogen may be produced, but given that the majority of reactions occurring involve solely the deuterium, there is less radioactive waste produced.
yes crack can be dangerous in many ways, it can cause many problems with you. like death lung cancer or disease i would hope you would listen to me and NOT TAKE CRACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO!!! Because if it was, there would not be any silver jewellery/cutlery etc., about, because the radio-activity woulkd be dangerous.
That depends on the "half-life" of that particular radioactive element, which the question forgot to state. They're all different. Various radioactive elements have half-lives ranging from microseconds to millions of years.
I suppose that you think to the radioactive isotope Cs-17; After 4 years remain 9,122 g.
One eighth would be left.
Half life refers to the time required for the change (decay) of a radioactive nucleus to a lighter, possibly more stable, nucleus.Starting with 5,000 radioactive atoms, at the end of first year, half would have decayed leaving 2,500. Following the same pattern, the end of the second year would see only 1,250. By the end of year 5, there would be just 156 radioactive atoms.
No, radioactive decay is not affected by temperature, at least, not in anything like a normal range. At millions of degrees, yes, it would speed up.
Yes. And if massive enough then the density may increase due to gravitational attraction in a matter of time we can perceive. even with a small mass this is happening, however it may take 1000s to millions of years for it to be measurable.In most cases the mass would remain the same (absent radioactivity losses) but the density would increase. If highly radioactive its mass would likely decrease over time.
Basically a very long time. Most radioactive isotopes are radioactive for a long time. Uranium 232 has a half life of 69 years and plutonium 238 has a half life of 88 years. Some isotopes are very long lived.
After 61.5 years, five half-lives would have passed for tritium (12.3 years x 5 = 61.5 years). Each half-life reduces the amount of radioactive material by half. Therefore, after 61.5 years, 3.125% (0.5^5) of the initial 118mg of tritium would remain radioactive.
Nuclear waste is an unfortunate by-product of the process of nuclear fission for the purpose of energy production. The spent fuel rods are "safely" stored and sequestered, but will remain dangerous for thousands of years. As far as I know, there is no "purpose" for nuclear waste, other than to convince people that they do not want a power plant in their backyard. The theoretically possible process of nuclear fusion (which is how the sun works) would produce less radioactive material and waste.
Radioactive dating, specifically radiometric dating, is used to determine the age of rocks that are millions of years old. This method relies on the decay of radioactive isotopes within the rock to calculate its age. By measuring the ratio of parent isotopes to daughter isotopes, scientists can estimate how long ago the rock formed.
By definition. If it were stable, then it would not be radioactive.