whats the relationship between unstable materials and radioactivity?
477357
all the difference is, is that the radioactive material is giving off electromagnetic waves because it has been charged by something that gave off a large amount of magnetic waves, such as the sun... radiation is just another form of heat/energy, and it is just radiating the heat/energy it has gotten, and when it gets rid of the energy, it will stop radiating...and unstable materials, react with other elements, like if u drop lithium in water, boom, because it has not enough valence electrons and is lower on the periodic table, so it tries to bond with others to get/give valance electrons
223643
because not all of it has turned into lead yet. a half life extends forever. the part that has not decayed is still uranium.
508155
Write the word 'radioactivity' in www.google.com.Then collect watever information u need.
1178573
a) a nuclear disaster falls under physics, not chemistry\nb) Yahoo Answers does not exist to do your homework for you.
502068
The energy levels for an electronic change (chemical combination) and for a nuclear change (radioactive decay) are so far apart that there is essential no coupling between the processes.  In other words the two processes will act independently.
423557
Basically, from left to right in a period, the metallic character of the elements decreases and non-metallic character increases i.e. the elements lose the tendency to give off electrons and instead tend to accept or share electrons.\nGroupwise, the reactivity of elements generally increases down the group in order of increasing atomic number, except in group 7 where the most reactive element is at the top and least reactive at the bottom. \nI don't suppose there is any relationship as such - you can't say the reactivity increases in order of increasing atomic number; you can only compare the reactivity in terms of groups and periods; including exceptions like hydrogen, group 7 elements and lithium for instance (which undergoes some reactions that are not the characteristics of group 1).
179523
Uranium enrichment is the process of making those little things called electrons that are in atoms to become more and more unstable thus creating a highly unstable substance that is used for the core of.. you guessed it! The A bomb! There are different isotopes of atoms, usually uranium, and the more electrons you make it lose the more unstable it gets, Plutonium is used in bombs, plutonium is made from uranium for example. Have a nice day.
244528
There are some numbers such as 20, 82, etc. which signifyu that if the difference between the number of protons and neutrons or the umber of protons or the number of neutrons are equal to that number then the nucleus is especially stable. No exact scientific reason is present to explain this effect. So these are called magic numbers.
551585
Toxic atoms are just elements that have properties that are bad for life.\n\nRadioactive atoms are unstable, which means they fall apart all by themselves into smaller pieces. Usually a radioactive atom will throw off one or more neutrons to become the next lower element or isotope on the periodic table.\n\nAn isotope is an element that has a different number of neutrons in it's nucleus. For example, most carbon atoms have 6 protons and 6 neutrons in the nucleus.  That is a total of 12 particles so it is called carbon 12. Carbon 14 has two extra neutrons, or 6 protons and 8 neutrons. Because the number of electrons is always the same as the number of protons, and because chemistry is all based on electron interactions, both types of carbon behave the same chemically.\n\nA subatomic particle is a particle smaller than one atom. Atoms were once thought to be the smallest possible particle of matter, but we now know that they are made up of collections of various numbers of smaller particles called protons, neutrons and electrons.\n\nA "normal" atom would probably be the most stable isotope. For example carbon 14 is radioactive and changes into carbon 12 if given enough time, so carbon 12 might be considered more "normal". But I think the term "normal" is not clear and has no real meaning in this case. Certainly many naturally occurring elements are toxic, or radioactive or both.
778367
Elements that heavy would decay extremely fast, like within a tiny fraction of a second. They could never be stable in nature.
656932
Temperature only has meaning when you have a large enough quantity of particles to apply statistical mechanics to them. So, you are referring to a mass of, I suppose, a pure radiosotope. \n\nBeyond that it really depends.  Can be looked at in a fairly simple way.  That clump of neutrons and protons emits one or more particles and possibly a photon. What happens to those particles and photons makes a big difference in the impact they have on the surrounding material. If they are absorbed in some manner, a lot of their momentum will become momentum in the matrix (atoms and bonds between them) of the material. That means the temperature increases.  \n\nTo say how much it increases you need to know how much material is present, how well it absorbs the radiation it generates internally, and its thermal coeffecient (how much energy per mass/degree which depends on a LOT of things and will vary from substance to substance.)\n\nI recommend you go to wikipedia, or some other reasonably reliable source and look up "radioactive decay"  "temperature" and "chain reactions."\n\nSomething like plutonium will become noticbly warm in sufficient mass and in the appropriate shape (a sphere is nice) because the decay products from one atom are absorbed by the nuclei of more than atom on average, and these absorbtions cause THOSE atoms to decay in a short timescale, if you have chosen the right kind of atom. The net effect is the number of decaying atoms in the mass at any one point in time is pretty large and the thing heats up. The limit to this (why you don't get a runaway reaction) is closer to the surface (or due to impurities inside) significant amounts of the decay products are not absorbed by atoms that subsequently decay as a result.\n\nThat is why a small mass of U-235 will not "go critical" (almost all of it decays in a small time) whereas a larger chunk will.  Shape is important too, because clearly a very thin one atom thick sheet of the stuff would loose most of its decay products without setting off other atoms. A sphere is the most efficient shape in this regard. Finally, impurities matter because then you have non-reactive atoms absorbing some of the products so you are not setting off more than one atom for each atom that decays. That is why you can make a bomb with weapons grade U-235, but not less pure stuff.  The less pure stuff will still warm up because enough extra atoms get set off (suppose on average, each decay sets off 0.999999999999999 more decays) If the decays did not also happen spontaneously there wouldn't be any.\n\nLook up "chain reaction" in wikipedia also.
359631
Atoms of chemical elements may have many isotopes (different forms) with the same atomic numbers but different atomic weights / atomic mass numbers. If a nuclide is radioactive, it is sometimes referred to as a radionuclide or (when the atom in question is understood) a radioisotope.\n\nA radionuclide is an atom with an unstable nucleus. The radionuclide undergoes radioactive decay by emitting a gamma ray(s) and/or subatomic particles. Radionuclides may occur naturally, but can also be artificially produced.\n\nRadionuclides are often referred to by chemists and biologists as radioactive isotopes or radioisotopes, and play an important part in the technologies that provide us with food, water and good health. However, they can also constitute real or perceived dangers.
436959
Say goodbye to matter, I suppose.\n\nWithout electrons (which are negative), all chemical bonds would collapse - so definitley say goodbye to any and all compounds. There goes most materials.  Ditto for chemistry.
1165718
The key to understanding fission and fusion is to understand what is known as the "binding energy per nucleon" or "mass defect." The force (attractive force) that keeps the nuceii of atoms together, called the strong nuclear force, acts differently depending on the configuration of the nucleus. If we divide the total binding energy of this nuclear force for a particular nucleus by the number of nucleons (i.e., protons + neutrons added together), we get a measure of how "stable" the nucleus is.  The more binding energy per nucleon, the more stable the nucleus is - that is, the more tightly bound the particles are. \n\nSimilarly, the mass defect represents the difference between the relativistic mass of the nucleus and the rest masses of the particles - another way of looking at the binding energy in relativistic (E=mc^2) terms.\n\nCertain nuclei are more stable than others. Ordinary hydrogen, for example, consists only of a single proton - so there is no binding energy per nucleon. Very large nuclei - such as uranium and plutonium - are very unstable because as the nucleus becomes larger, the relative effect of the nuclear force (the "binding energy per nucleon") becomes less and the electromagnetic repulsion of the protons becomes greater.\n\nOur universe tends toward greater stability. When large relatively unstable nuclei such as Uranium or Plutonium are bombarded by free neutrons, there is a probability that some of the nuclei will split into two more stable nuclei (i.e., nuclei with greater binding energy per nucleon). This is fission.  The difference in binding energy is converted to kinetic energy (heat) and radiation (gamma rays, light). \n\nSimilarly, some very small nuclei such as hydrogen have less binding energy per nucleon than larger nuclei such as helium.  When these smaller nuclei are forced together within the range of the strong nuclear force, there is a probability the nuclei will combine (fuse) into a more stable nucleus with greater binding energy per nucleon.  This is fusion.  Again, the difference in binding energy is converted to kinetic energy (heat) and radiation (gamma rays and light).\n\nFission and fusion are only sustainable if the resultant nuclei are more stable than the initial nucleii - i.e., if the binding energy per nucleon increases.  Also, fission and fusion require some energy input to get them started - Uranium and Plutonium have lower initial energy requirements, so it is easier for them.  Similarly, hydrogen fusion into helium is "relatively" easy compared to fusion of other nuclei.
878305
A kinetically stable substance has a high activation eregy barrier that prevents it from reacting quickly unless a large amount of energy is supplied.\nA thermodynamically stable substance has an exothermic enthalpy of formation, or has no other substances of lower energy into which it can decompose.
323090
Alpha, beta and gamma radiation is radioactive radiation. It is cause by unstable atoms "decaying" to become stable atoms. Alpha and beta partciles are Protons and Electrons respectively whilst gamma radiation is very very high frequency "electromagnetic radiation." \nNon radioactive radiation is sound, heat, light..
889558
copper metal is listed as "very unreactive".  This means it is relatively stable as a metal, and relatively unstable as an ion.\n\nMagnesium metal "reacts with acids" so it is more stable in ionic form than copper,and less stable as pure metal.\n\nThe goal of nature is to go from an net unstable form to a more stable form.  (This is called reducing the free energy, or delta G of a system).\n\nIn order to use the activity series:\n\nany metal below a given metal is less stable in ionic form and more stable as a pure metal.\n\nThis means that a pure metal can reduce the ions of any metals below it.\n\nFor example, aluminum metal can reduce manganese ions, zinc ions, and so on because they are below it.\n\nAluminum metal cannot reduce magnesium ions, calcium ions, and other metals above it.\n\nI hope you can get it now.  Ok I am sure what I typed is correct now.  Good luck!\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activity_series